> They are not free, however, to break the Web.
I don't understand this perspective.
As far as I can see, nothing here prevents regular, un-DRM'd content being sent as HTML5 video just as it can be today. This seems to be adding an extra option, which is to send protected content as well.
There is clearly a demand from suppliers for this facility. As a consumer, your options right now are to accept the extra content protected, or not at all. You do not have the third alternative of accepting it unprotected, whether you think you should or not. A content provider is under no obligation to give you their material on your terms just because you would like them to. Declining to give you content at all is not breaking the Web, it's just saying they don't want you as a customer, and if you want to enjoy their content, that's your problem more than theirs.
Ultimately, technology is neutral, and how it is applied is what counts. A standardised version of protected video potentially allows more people access to more content using more diverse business models. Sure, some people will always point at that and say it will be abused in dubious ways. However, the most effective way to defeat any such abuses is to vote with your wallet. If the information-wants-to-be-free crowd are right and there really is plenty of profit to be made on unrestricted content and a large market segment who won't put up with DRM, then the DRM will die.
On the other hand, reasonably effective copy protection also makes low-cost models such as pay-per-view/rental or all-you-can-eat subscription commercially viable. That could very much be in the interests of a lot of people who don't want to pay the full price for a permanent copy of something they'll probably only ever watch once anyway. Such deals are never going to fly in today's culture if the terms are trivially violated, and this has been a serious bottleneck in terms of getting the best content onto on-line providers and ultimately to consumers for them to enjoy.