1. "Even if W3C decided to drop EME, there are enough important companies working on the spec--including Netflix, Google, and Microsoft--that a common platform will be built. The only difference is whether it happens under the W3C umbrella..."
This is probably true, but that doesn't make EME a good thing. Okay, so some powerful media companies are colluding to develop a shitty content delivery platform. How does that at all entail the idea that HTML should throw support behind it? Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean you have to officially endorse it.
2. "Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely."
I really don't see this as a problem. The web simply doesn't need these DRM-enamored content distributors. It will do fine without them. In fact, if the web loses them, the web wins.
3. "Opposition to EME will produce" a situation where software and services are "locked away in a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps".
This is just a stupid thing to say. DRM requires a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps, regardless of how they're implemented. The proposed CDMs (content decryption modules) that EME requires are also proprietary and platform-specific. They are quite simply no better than traditional HTML plug-ins like Flash or newer delivery platforms like native mobile apps. "A rose by any other name". Except that DRM doesn't smell sweet at all.
4. "A case could be made that EME will make it easier for content distributors to experiment with--and perhaps eventually switch to--DRM-free distribution."
While it's technically true that EME might make it slightly easier for such experimentation, that's really besides the point. Ease of implementation is absolutely not what's stopping these content distributors from such experiments. Business politics is what's stopping them. If a business decides that it wants to try a DRM-free model, it will try it. The implementation details hardly affect the decision.
This is probably true, but that doesn't make EME a good thing. Okay, so some powerful media companies are colluding to develop a shitty content delivery platform. How does that at all entail the idea that HTML should throw support behind it? Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean you have to officially endorse it.
2. "Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely."
I really don't see this as a problem. The web simply doesn't need these DRM-enamored content distributors. It will do fine without them. In fact, if the web loses them, the web wins.
3. "Opposition to EME will produce" a situation where software and services are "locked away in a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps".
This is just a stupid thing to say. DRM requires a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps, regardless of how they're implemented. The proposed CDMs (content decryption modules) that EME requires are also proprietary and platform-specific. They are quite simply no better than traditional HTML plug-ins like Flash or newer delivery platforms like native mobile apps. "A rose by any other name". Except that DRM doesn't smell sweet at all.
4. "A case could be made that EME will make it easier for content distributors to experiment with--and perhaps eventually switch to--DRM-free distribution."
While it's technically true that EME might make it slightly easier for such experimentation, that's really besides the point. Ease of implementation is absolutely not what's stopping these content distributors from such experiments. Business politics is what's stopping them. If a business decides that it wants to try a DRM-free model, it will try it. The implementation details hardly affect the decision.