I argued this seemingly endlessly here and on the W3C mailing list. I lost, too. The W3C has become convinced that if it doesn't adopt DRM into the 'open web'

I argued this seemingly endlessly here and on the W3C mailing list. I lost, too. The W3C has become convinced that if it doesn't adopt DRM into the 'open web' (thereby destroying it), it will become irrelevant because content producers will boycott the web. What they don't seem to understand is that DRM-encumbered content is not part of the open web _anyway_, by definition; there is no benefit to companies making it available on DRM-encumbered 'web sites' versus proprietary app-store apps. It's very hard to talk about this in detail with those pushing for DRM, because they claim that the requirements incumbent upon them to support DRM are secret, and can't be shared with the public. http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in-html5.html http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in-htm... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016 I think the reason for this is 'crisis of representation'; that is, those voices on the W3C pushing for DRM are very large, very well funded, and have good access to key decision-makers (like Berners-Lee and Jaffe). The end result is something that looks like a sensible, consultative approach to developing standards but is in fact not.