> People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). When did I say

> People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). When did I say that? Specifically? Why did you assume I'm ignorant of the way corporations operate? That's on you. Not me. > It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. Except the standard that they adopted is not friendly to the end-user. So "Non standard plugin hell" becomes "standard DRM hell." A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You know what still would have worked? Pirate Bay. You can spin it however you want. DRM is good for content providers. It's not good for users. If Netflix requires DRM - so be it. They've got good engineers, they can provide a DRM plugin that you have to use. Or a standalone player. If a service doesn't have good engineering, their service will suffer. It doesn't need to be a part of the open web standard.