This is the truth. There has been no effective movement against DRM. The EFF is more guilty than Mozilla in this case because fighting DRM is a core function of the EFF's, while adapting to established web standards is Mozilla's primary function.

You are completely and utterly wrong here.

I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. The EFF was fighting this with education of the public, procedural maneuverings within the W3C itself, and with invited commentary to the relevant standards groups. Mozilla was also doing these things, and, contrary to what you might assume living in our tech bubble, has a pulpit with far greater reach than the EFF.

But then they implemented the damn thing--which, by the way, is not a standard yet--in their browser.

But, please, tell me exactly what the EFF is guilty of. They might have failed, but that's a very different thing.

The only way to have stopped EME would have been to get Google and Microsoft, it's creators and promoters, to stop pushing it.

The only way to do that would be to affect their bottom line, such as people refusing to use their browsers if they ship EME.

That would have been the only campaign with a chance of stopping EME. Mozilla couldn't lead it - it would look self-serving ("how convenient, a browser vendor wants us to boycott its rivals"). The EFF as a respected third party could have.

That would have been our only hope.

I'm not sure how you think blaming everyone but Mozilla isn't self-serving or convenient.

Mozilla is still against DRM, but it is secondary to their mission to provide access to web standards. The EFF's lack of effectiveness is not a defense. They do good work, but more is needed. In this case, it's not fair to point the finger for a joint loss.

Yeah, I wish the EFF had done more, and I wonder what would have happened if the EFF had taken a more aggressive strategy to fight EME a while back.