In principle, I'm opposed to it. I don't like a lot of DRM practices, and I hate how DRM interferes with our ability to build archives of today's digital culture for future generations.

The thing is, though, DRM exists. And it's going to keep existing. Right now, content companies aren't comfortable putting things online unless they can use something like Flash to lock it down. So, the result is the DRM we were going to have anyway will now work with browser-native technologies that are more secure, efficient, and accessible.

I see it as a net win, even if it's not the outcome I'd have preferred.

I have to say I'm undecided. It's really unclear to me what the DRM as part of the spec will actually do.

If it is designed so that ANYONE who produces content can enable DRM if they so choose, then, I'm ok with it. If you create content and want to protect it, it would be nice to have an easy-to-use standardized method of doing so that works well and is familiar to the customer.

However, if the idea is to get vendor specific DRM built into the spec that is for use by ONLY the vendors, then, uh, yeah, that would be pretty dumb.

I'm afraid to see how fast this feature was implemented by all browsers caniuse.com

spec is draft again w3c.github.io/encrypted-media

This is the only feature that is is not useful at all for final user and it's not a demand from developers. Most of us will never use it.