Replacing NPAPI plugin with some other DRM doesn't make anything better, whether it will be cooked into the browser or remain an external black box. Surely not something to dream about.
You're like Stallman wondering why an llvm user would be excited about a new feature in clang. That user doesn't necessarily care about free software purity.
You don't care about "free software purity", but we're not talking about "impure" open-source software. The EME module is completely closed source, trade secret, subject to opaque negotiations between large private companies. It is in fact quite pragmatic to have a problem with it. If you want to put a browser on a sufficiently different platform, it won't be able to play most of the videos on the web, if EME becomes popular. Or, if there's enough resistance to it, and DRM on video eventually goes the way of DRM on audio (i.e. goes away), you'll have put a bunch of effort and contracts and such into something that only holds you back from offering the best experience (whether you make websites or client platforms).
All that said, I suppose it is better that the DRM is relegated to the smallest possible piece, and delivery, decoding, and presentation are possibly open to improvement by the client platforms.
So the author can cheer for the abstract benefit of moving plugins in the browser, but actual benefit isn't explained, since it's actually not a benefit at all.
I'm not a fan of DRM, but it's simply a reality of the industry. It's weird, but most content doesn't have the same liberal license as Big Buck Bunny :)
> So what's so good about cooking things into the browser?
Remember RealPlayer? Windows Media Player? Quicktime? DivX? Flash? You don't see the benefit in getting to deal with these things less as a developer and, more importantly, a user?
As a user you deal with trusting the code you run. I don't trust running any DRM blobs on my system. And it's irrelevant for Linux users anyway, since even if Firefox would for example enable EME, there is no Adobe DRM blob for Linux to work with it so the whole discussion doesn't even start there.
> DRM is absolutely, 100% a necessity if you want to deal with any content coming from anyone from whom you actually want their content.
No, thanks. They need the Web more than the Web needs them. So I'll use their services when they'll start treating users decently and not like criminals by default, shoving unethical preemptive policing in everyone's throat. I personally prefer to vote with my wallet, that's why I'm not dreaming about any DRMed services and clutches they need to function - I don't use them. So definitely EME isn't something that interests me in the least.
I either use DRM-free services like GOG, or buy video on disks which nominally has no DRM (i.e. DRM there is obsolete, thanks to libdvdcss and the like).
Here is a good read about how GOG deals with this DRM idiocy in the video industry: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
You can do whatever you'd like with your wallet, but you live in a very different reality from most people. There's a reason why GOG can offer "Minecraft: The Story of Mojang" without DRM.
Again, this conversation has nothing to do with the actual blog post in question other than rabbling about something you disagree with. I disagree with you that EME is Satan's binary blob, but this is entirely irrelevant.
In gaming sense GOG already broke quite a number of walls even with publishers who were usually viewed as thick skulled DRM proponents. Film industry however is one of the worst when it comes to this (it's older than the gaming industry in general so more legacy garbage and practices are attached).