> Without a W3C standard we might get several totally different, incompatible DRM implementations instead of one standard one.

The EME spec does NOT define a single standard DRM implementation.

The point of EME is to provide a single interface to a DRM module. The DRM modules will be entirely nonstandard, closed-source, and there will be many of them.

Google has its own DRM module, Microsoft has its own. So there are already two, entirely incompatible DRM implementations. And none of them work on other browsers. Even if other browsers implemented EME, the actual DRM implementations would not work on them.

So this is a step backwards, not forwards. It increases fragmentation.

Isn't DRM highly fragmented as it is?

Yes, but many people are pitching EME as a solution to that fragmentation. It isn't.

Not that much. There is Flash and Silverlight, basically. EME and the various DRM modules for it will increase DRM fragmentation on the web.

The problem isn't Netflix - it's going to use DRM regardless of how hard it is. The loss is the smaller and user-generated content sites who would have chosen to not mandate weird plugins, but will end up crippling videos to force people into sanctioned methods of viewing. Most cable companies set the "don't copy" bit on rebroadcasted over-the-air channels - they have little reason not to.

> Is it an impractical position?

Only because our consumer culture places such a high value on entertainment. There are way more important things, though.

And no, I don't have a Netflix subscription; haven't for years. Flirted with Spotify some months ago, but canceled that too.