This is the problem with letting the opponent pick the battlefield. If you've decided that "playing DRM video" is a necessary feature, you are choosing to perpe

This is the problem with letting the opponent pick the battlefield. If you've decided that "playing DRM video" is a necessary feature, you are choosing to perpetually play catch-up. "The only winning move is not to play." The media industries are very used to being the middlemen that dictate how their industry works. As middlemen, they have the power to control both sides (publishers and consumers). As monopolists, they get to abuse the market by tying/bundling the things people want to the things they want to push ("if you want to watch $POPULAR_SHOW, you need to submit to using our DRM"). They also get to play various financial games, though that is less important re: video. These problems are not technical in nature, and cannot be solved by writing software. Chrome and Edge are colluding to require some type of DRM (that they or their friends control)? They should face the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Unfortunately, we have let institutional corruption take over the parts of government that should be enforcing those laws. Choosing freedom instead of submitting to the copyright cartels requires sacrifice. Mozilla could help this with stuff like an educational campaign, but there will always be casualties when fighting entrenched powers. Many people chose convenience instead of investing in their future, so now we are in an uphill battle. It's difficult to convince people that they should choose a healthy browser instead of the copyright cartel's junk-food, and I don't know of any great solutions. What I do know is that giving up the fight and granting those middlemen even more power is only going to make future battles for free software and an open internet even harder. Do you want to tackle is problem now? Or do you want let power accumulate even more and fight a harder problem in the future?