I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.
"Why the movie industry have protection but we don't? We need HTML5 DRM in our writings, is our copyright less important than theirs? I say no sir!"
And slowly an internet where you can't use browser extensions, where you can't copy anything you read, where you depend on the existence of a company, a functional internet connection to play (just once) the content you bought, but a content that you certainly don't own.
Create sites which you can't leave or close? Easy, use drm and prevent any action that would closing the tab or give access to the url bar.
DRM is code with the intention to take full control over a device after sale. With that, any action is possible. Installing tool-bars, sending browser history, stealing information. The only protection is the letter of the law, and any hacker brave enough to reverse engineer the drm to identify what it actually do (under the threat of DMCA and jail time of course).
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kine...
That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive.
Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.
And what if parents made that the default browser on the device? To protect the kids, of course.
Of course.
So people who choose to use only free software will be excluded from large parts of the web. How is that a good outcome?
Just because your browser supports EME doesn't oblige CDM vendors to produce a version compatible with your platform.
It is not just about Hollywood. The New York Times will use DRM to try to enforce payments. Scientific journals will use DRM to stop people from sharing articles. Photos will be DRM'd by companies that want to force you to go online to view them, to pay extra for setting them as your background, etc. How long do you think Mozilla can hold out against the pressure to include DRM functionality?