So we're including things in the HTML spec just to satisfy hollywood lawyers now? We would be saddling a spec(and any browser wishing to implement it) for what will probably be a decade and possibly more just so hollywood execs/lawyers can cover their asses and protect a dying business model which will probably be outlived by both the spec and implementing browsers.
I find that stupid, to say the least. Especially since, it is highly likely that at some point, some company will be big enough to push back and distribute things DRM-free just like Apple did with iTunes.
But once the model dies, why does it matter if it is in the spec? If a company (say Apple) gets big enough to demand no DRM, like Apple did with music, then no one will use the standard anymore.
So why does it matter if the standard makes it easier to more widely distribute the content, which will only help in hastening its demise by allowing someone to grow big enough to push back?
Given that for EME to not be trivially bypassed, the CDM has to be a blob implementing its own decoders, how is this significantly different than Flash or Silverlight binary plugins?
Why would whoever's developing these CDMs (each individual site I'd assume?) suddenly invest the resources into providing Linux versions?
Google owns this company: http://www.widevine.com
Which already has a linux plugin. That is why they are pushing for the standard as well.
No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the only way to show premium content to people without requiring a plugin from Microsoft.
> it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately,
Actually, the inclusion of EME in HTML5 is exactly what would enable you to watch content on Linux.