Meaning anyone can implement the technology that can show a web page. You can't show Netflix's web page, unless they preapprove of your DRM.
I understand that you don't want to run code Netflix approves of and that you're not permitted to read in its original source form. And that's fine, a good reason not to subscribe to Netflix. But how is that any more an offense to "the open web" than a subscription-only website?
For a browser to run a blob, there needs to be an interface between the browser and the blob. Flash and Silverlight blobs used a standard interface: NPAPI. Any browser implementing NPAPI could run the blobs (assuming the blob was compatible with the host OS).
CDMs have no such standard browser/blob interface (note that EME relates only to the Javascript environment not the actual browser code). In fact, the only browsers able to run these blobs are the ones that the CDM provider 'trusts' and is willing to provide proprietary information to in order for browser developers to get their blob working. Your independent Firefox fork will almost certainly never be able to support any major CDM; the CDM provider doesn't trust, nor care about your browser.
Therefore, CDM providers arbitrarily _select_ which browsers can have access to their Web content. This is unprecedented. Content on the Web, in whatever form, has always been accessible by _any_ browser; it was merely a matter of that browser implementing the necessary standards. This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.
You are free not to run those blobs, and not to use Netflix's services. Where you lose me is the militant demand that Netflix not offer services to those willing to run the blob.
> This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.
Yes, both a CDM and passworded accounts limit access to content. The difference is that CDM providers are only letting certain Web browsers view the content. Passworded accounts have no such limitation.
The open Web is dependent on any conceivable browser being interoperable with ALL Web content. Any barriers to interoperability are only technical. Third-parties, like a CDM provider, cannot setup arbitrary barriers. Otherwise, it is no longer "open". THIS is the definition of 'open Web'; it has nothing to do with authorization as in subscription only websites.
I, as an open web proponent, want to make it difficult for any business to add DRM to their media offering. by making DRM a difficult system to implement due to proprietary plugins, it increases the perceived value of just offering it without DRM.
but by having EME a standard, it makes it a no brainer to use DRM, because their customers will automatically have it as part of a browser. the cost of DRM is then externalised, and even legitimised such that it's the norm.
Where you lose me is the notion that there's an intrinsic ethical imperative not to provide attachment points in standards for DRM. That doesn't ring true.
> This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.
It works the same regardless of what browser or OS you are using.
That is what people oppose. The fact that you do not directly address this point and try to equivocate it to <input type=password> makes me question your good faith here.
Your argument is that EME covers most of the code responsible implementing DRM. This is false. EME is a small part. The large majority of the implementation is not standardized. For example, there is no equivalent of NPAPI in the post-EME world; the CDM/browser interface is browser-specific.
Is there another interpretation of 'everything' in this context? You're making EME far more comprehensive than it is. CDMs do way more than derive a key, so your statement is false on its face.