In a few years every video on the web will use DRM, and you won't even be able to download YouTube videos.
You know, like the crappy ones (flash, silverlight) we've been trying to ditch for a decade now.
You're technically not allowed to download YouTube videos anyway, there just isn't a convenient measure against it. You're not paying, you're probably blocking ads and now you want to download stuff for free? You're worthless to creators.
Also, you're not getting to see all the videos that aren't on Youtube exactly because there is no DRM.
No, because DRM + DMCA has repeatedly been used to violate consumers' and researchers' fair use rights. It's my right to lock my house, unless you're inside it and I'm effectively turning it into a prison.
If I buy a movie on Google Play Movies, I have the right to make up to 7 backups without DRM, but DRM prevents me from that.
Absolutely. That's not particularly relevant to the normative question of whether the HTML standard should make adding DRM less of a pain point though.
No, they have no right to control my computer
As anti-DRM as I am, what you're basically saying is that DRM which is essentially encryption used with some sort of e-commerce system should be difficult and obtuse, so as to discourage it's use, while at least implying (and I'm betting you are) that you'd be pro-encryption on the user's side for security and privacy.
You have the right to privacy and to use encryption to enforce that privacy, but so do content creators have the right to lock you out until you're willing to pay money, watch ads, or whatever system they have in mind. You aren't entitled to content any more than Doubleclick is entitled to your browsing history.
I'd say this is incorrect. At it's core DRM requires a locked-down system, either on the hardware or software level, but always closed source, to hide operations from the owner of the device. Encryption is a big part of this but technically doesn't need to be.
I agree that content creators have the right to stop me from consuming their content if I don't pay money, watch ads or whatever, but they don't have the right to require me to install unknown software or hardware on my computer.
Yes and that's why they're adding DRM support to HTML5, so you don't need to and the browser you're using can act as the endpoint allowing access to the content. Now you don't need to install Flash or ick Silverlight to do so.
More to the point though, they absolutely do. A content creator can set any kind of wacky requirements for you to consume their content that they see fit; and it's your decision as a content consumer to decide if you're going to jump through whatever hoops of fire to do so. You, and no one else aside from the creator (or more likely, distributor) has a right to say what is a reasonable expectation and what is an unreasonable expectation.
I would however add that recently there has been a push to "Steamify" many content delivery systems to remove the friction typically associated with DRM and to make consuming DRM-enabled content more seamless. I think content distributors are slowly waking up to the fact that they cannot stop the Piracy end of things, so the solution is to do what Steam did for video games: make Piracy less attractive by making legal ownership better value for money, and less effort.
I dont think you understand how EME work
You still need to have a CDM, which is functionally the exact same as a flash plugin, the CDM's are not part of the standard, Adobe, MS and Google are the only providers of the CDM's so every browser not made by those 3 have to go begging for permission to include the binary non-open blob in their browser if they want to use EME for media
So you believe "rights holders" rights are unlimited, and they should have the power to demand anything?
Surely not. "Right Holders" have only the very limited rights granted to them under copyright law, some people including myself believe they have too many rights but they sure as hell are not unlimited like you seem to imply. They do not get full and total control over their content, only the control allowed under copyright law which has many limits and exemptions including but not limited to fair use rights for the public, and a limited in duration term which they have those rights
The purpose of copyright law is NOT to protect the creator, it is promote useful sciences and exchange of knowledge. Copyright is to help promote creation FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, not personal profit. People seem to forget that
Copyright today seems to be at odds with its constitutional purpose, its legal reason for existence
That's exactly not what I said:
> The rights holders and/or distributors have every right to demand certain conditions for you to view their IP.
"Certain conditions" here referring to a subscription to a given service as many artists do on sites like Patreon, subscription through an exclusive DRM-enabled device like an Apple TV or FireTV, heck you could even consider the set-top boxes used by cable and satellite TV companies as that sort of requirement (and an active subscription of course).
The only media to which this doesn't really apply is OTA TV, Radio, and YouTube videos (mostly, excluding stuff confined to YouTube Red) and what I'm saying is that the creator of any given media has every right to decide which media channels it will be distributed through, at what cost, and via what channels be it iTunes, Patreon or Amazon or all of the above (as it's able to be.) You, for example, couldn't record all episodes of Last Week Tonight, and post them for sale on iTunes; the fact that HBO doesn't do that doesn't give you the right to then do it yourself, for profit or otherwise.
HBO does not need either to protect me from selling Copies of their content on iTunes.
EME and DRM is about preventing users from utilizing their rights under copyright law to format shift, time shift or consume content they paid for on the devices they desire, instead Hollywood wants to be able to charge the consumer no only for access to the content, but seperatly for each device, each view, each access, and be able to control when and where they view said content preventing users from view their content if they happen to travel internationally, or buy a device not blessed by Hollywood
none of which is allowed under Copyright law directly, but because of the provisions in DMCA preventing breaking of DRM they have illegitimately gained these rights and are using it to violate consumers fair use rights wholesale
If DRM prevents me from doing so, it violates my rights.
Some like Amazon MP3 are much more liberal in terms of what you can do with your purchased media, but you do not own the rights to copy it, sell it, or rent it. If you don't believe me, try and do it.
This still means you'll need a specific browser. Open-source browsers will likely not work anymore.
I'd hazard the folks who truly get locked out, users of more ideological browsers on more fringe linux distros, already were not using flash or silverlight, because those already required a proprietary blob of code. And frankly they're probably not interested in content that is locked down.