That traditional DRM was inconvenient and prone to user error is the entire point. It's supposed to be unpleasant. That somehow making it more convenient and adding a standards-endorsed API to facilitate its activation will somehow assist in combating it, is a nonsensical proposition.

Furthermore, there is a separation of concerns aspect here. Why are web standards writers under any obligation to serve the interests of content providers in the latter's aim to restrict the capabilities of playback device producers? This isn't the web's problem. The issue is the sole responsibility of the content providers, who are not deserving of special privilege more than any other party.

Standardizing an API to facilitate DRM presents a dangerous prospect in its tacit approval of such practices, and will only serve to prolong the practice as endorsement of it by standards bodies will legitimize the idea of DRM.

> That somehow making it more convenient and adding a standards-endorsed API to facilitate its activation will somehow assist in combating it, is a nonsensical proposition.

That is nonsensical but if you were to read my comment, you'll note it's not a proposition I made.

This really isn't hard: 1. Consumers are happily paying for DRMed content 2. The big media companies are not willing to consider releasing content without DRM 3. Nobody likes maintaining plugins or the lower video quality they entail 4. Apple, Google and Microsoft made it clear that they were going to solve #3 by implementing whatever Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. need to 5. The W3C and Mozilla accepted #4 and used what power they do have to push the process into a public forum. Mozilla has been particularly active to increase user awareness and make it more obvious when your actions are being restricted at a content owner's bequest.

There was no step where someone waves a magic wand and Hollywood stops demanding DRM.

With or without a W3C spec, most desktop users and nearly all mobile users were going to have a browser with DRM playback features. That means there's no step where Mozilla makes EME content harder to use and the reaction is something better than users dropping Firefox for Chrome/IE/Safari.

Again, if you care about this issue the question to focus on is how changing #1. As long as people keep paying for DRMed content, none of the other parties will have the incentive or ability to change.

I disagree. The pains of DRM were growing. The usability wasn't bad enough yet, but it was getting worse. As people use more and more devices and they want their media in all places, the existing plugins were getting less suitable.

That's why there was a push for standardization anyways. Dealing with all the quirks of all the platforms was becoming difficult for the copyright owners.

There was no reason that the W3C should have made this easier for them. The only thing that the copyright owners want more than DRM is an audience. The browser vendors held the audience, and handed them over without even a fight.

That was the best opportunity we had. Sure we can try to get consumers to turn away from DRM, but that's just not going to happen, we already turned in our trump card.

> There was no reason that the W3C should have made this easier for them.

MS, Google, and Apple would've set up their own venue to standardise the exact same thing. The W3C having it within their walls is really not that relevant to the outcome of this.