No, the DRM is going to be built into the browser itself. Browser vendors could in theory implement it as a plugin but they don't seem to be planning to and the W3C doesn't specify any kind of plugin mechanism. IE11 at least integrates it into the browser executable.

That's just not true, for exactly the example provided above.

It'd make no sense to let people roll their own browsers that circumvent DRM.

Among other reasons, people dislike DRM because it involves someone else effectively making your computer do something which you can't control, or even observe. Schemes vary, but the stronger ones can't even be run under a VM. This is a level beyond merely being "closed source".

Consider that of the four major browser vendors (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google) three are also major DRM vendors (Google's Widevine, Microsoft's PlayReady, and Apple's FairPlay).

What exactly do you think will prevent them from building their already-existing in-house DRM (three different systems, note!) into their own browsers?

I guess I don't understand what the problem with that would be.

Would that somehow lead to Hacker News or Facebook encrypting their site's source code with that DRM? I sort of doubt it. They could do that now with Flash if they wanted to, but no one thinks Flash websites are a good idea.

The main possible problems are twofold:

1) EME as currently proposed is video only, but will the W3C try to do the same for images? For text? There are certainly constituencies who would live simple turnkey DRM for those on the web. And they don't do it in Flash _precisely_ because Flash websites are not a good idea.

2) If the above happens, there is no incentive for Netflix, say, to try come up with a setup that works with open-source browsers and still satisfies the rightsholders for the content they distribute. If people complain they'll just be told the spec says browsers need to implement DRM, and if that means no open-source browsers tough luck.

The problem is that free and open-source browsers will not be able to show more and more content on the web. That is already true but it was not encouraged or endorsed by W3C so far. That has changed.

Actually Netflix and Stream could both operate without DRM. If content providers don't want to provide their content to open systems, that is their concern, not that of the middle men. Adding a DRM standard just placates to corporate wishes to control content. This has the chilling effect to prevent fair use, or worse it can be used to lock up content that should otherwise be open and free.

It is the concern of the middle men, though. If content providers aren't willing to provide content, then the middle men will have no reason to exist. You can't have Netflix without any movies or shows on it.

If content owners want to leave money on the table, that is their prerogative. Assuming there was no Netflix, et al., it would just drive more gray market piracy. That isn't something content providers want. As it happens, DRM or not, piracy happens. I don't see this standard changing that. You are also assuming that there would be no available content without DRM, but if traditional content providers couldn't sell their product to consumers anymore, I think it is more likely that non-traditional content providers, those that agree to distribute content that isn't encumbered with DRM restrictions, would become more successful. It is a shift from having content force feed to us by corporations, to a system where independent creators have greater exposure. I don't need their content and I'm less likely to consume it if they insist on locking it up. I do believe in paying for the content I receive, and I would continue to do so if the stream didn't have DRM.

You assume they're leaving money on the table by rejecting DRM, i.e. that there is more money in avoiding it than in supporting it to some degree. I'm not so sure.

You're also assuming that consumers give a crap about DRM. They generally don't, if they get the content they want is available at a good price (i.e. mostly free w/ advertising if it's low-engagement, or at cost if it's high-engagement), and good a user experience (i.e. I can consume it on my chosen device platform, in my chosen setting, without having to stand on my head).

DRM became a detractor for consumers in the music industry because they went to war with their own customers. Music has a multi-decade long culture of sharing and trading. Then the industry retroactively tries to state that all of this is illegal. You couldn't easily copy purchased files across devices due to their paranoia. Even iPods could only be sync'd to one library at a time (part of their settlement with Apple in the early 00's). They even tried to claim CD ripping was illegal (that didn't fly). This is why Apple advocated to get DRM removed altogether from iTunes and eventually won - it was just a crappy experience all around.

The TV/movie industry thus far has avoided the fate of the music industry through a mix of low-barrier access to content within the US (Hulu, iTunes, Netflix TV station websites, etc.) and DRM to erect some exclusionary barriers to the content. DRM in this sector is more like a horse race that doesn't quell piracy but keeps it at least somewhat inconvenient. They also didn't go to war with their customers, and were more selective of how they chose to use legal avenues.

I don't foresee death in their future, just winner-take-all competition if they don't keep up with what their customers want.

Ultimately, the nature of most information goods being non-excludable is changing the game in ALL industries that make and sell information from one of distributing the information to a hybrid market-gift-economy. You can have previews, clips, etc. to experience my stuff, perhaps even stream it for free for a limited time, but to get the best overall experience, they'll gate the access... i.e. you can't have my stuff unless you line up and pay a ticket. This is even how RedHat works (you need to pay to get into RHN, or their cloud... which are the best experiences of maintaining a RedHat server, even though the software itself is free).

Or they focus on something that is excludable: a consumer's time and attention... i.e. free TV streaming, or Facebook surfing time. And make money on the content with advertising.