I think I mostly agree with you. I think standards bodies operate most efficiently when they provide a bit of choice. If some browser writers want to implement

I think I mostly agree with you. I think standards bodies operate most efficiently when they provide a bit of choice. If some browser writers want to implement DRM in their browsers I would rather it be standardized than not. Simply because the W3C doesn't standardize it does not mean it will not be implemented in browsers. It's not like W3C standards are binding legal documents. From TFA: Much of the "Web" is disappearing into apps and into the big companies' walled gardens. If it is to be relevant in the decades to come, it must do everything it can to keep the Web open as an alternative to those walled gardens. Then remove a reason for the web to disappear into walled gardens and allow the W3C to standardize DRM. Not providing ways for everyone to serve up their content via the web will only accelerate movement to other mediums. I like the idea of the non-agression covenant. But the obvious problem with it is that implementers of EME don't have to sign it. It looks like it only covers those who participate at the W3C. It's a rather strange legal concept, and possibly unenforceable, but I'll leave it at that.