Remember, though: this is the FSF talking. There's no such thing as a shade of gray to them; you're either Free, as they define Free, or you're not.

That's not to say they're always wrong, but you have to remember to evaluate everything they say through that lens...

You're right, but people don't even read the spec. No where in that spec does it say DRM...

This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to the spec in question?

Their main problem is that Netflix are pushing for DRM to be in the HTML5 standard.

This is indeed a complicated issue and could end up badly for the internet as a whole.

Someone hasn't even read the spec, it allows you to implement DRM. But it in itself is NOT DRM.

The entire purpose of EME is DRM, and EME plugins (that are actually used) will only be used to implement DRM. I believe the spec is deliberately obfuscated to try to defuse opposition, but that only worked for so long.

And that's what they are apparently pushing for, to be implemented in the spec (maybe so it cannot be blocked? I'm not up to date with the details).

> There is no negative. What is negative is the fact that people seem to think that netflix should just continue using a closed system made by Microsoft which doesn't work on Linux natively.

The negative is that the new proposal will also not work on Linux. It will also not work on other browsers, because each DRM implementation for EME will be incompatible (there are currently 2, incompatible of course, Google's and Microsoft's).

> I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

By all means let them. They can even work with browser vendors to make it "work" on any platform that has their proprietary DRM binary. But there aren't enough ten-foot poles in the world to call that an "HTML5" "standard".

> If netflix wants a way to add DRM so people can watch DRMed videos on the Internet let them.

That's fine, nobody is arguing against what Netflix can and should do with their own software and hardware that they distribute -- but the key difference is imposing their business requirements on everybody else.

They have no authority -- be it moral, ethical, or logical -- to impose such a will on everybody.

You say it doesn't work on Linux natively, as if this DRM solution will.

Sure as hell we shouldn't mandate broken standards (a propietary, obfuscated binary blob? You must be kidding) just to support someones ill-guided business model. We didn't with the many attempts of the music industry.