This is why their position on DRM is often left unspoken, they can't publicly discredit because they need the studios on their side. But equally it's hard to address the criticisms if they also agree with such criticisms. So it's easier to just avoid being drawn into the argument to begin with.
> House of Cards was only released with web DRM
then how has the experiment been performed? Or did you mean to say the show was released without web DRM?
In fact, I'm not sure that performing DrJokepu's experiment as stated would prove anything: releasing episodes of HoC without DRM would have little effect, as they have been copied despite not having been made available without DRM.
The hypothesis is that it does just as good (really bad) job of preventing it while encumbering legitimate customers less.
From their perspective, the DRM question isn't if, it's how. So, that's what their article is about.
Aren't you willing to play chicken? I am.
So we don't even get an opportunity to play chicken... google and netflix will break the net and shove this shit down our throat regardless. Why should we the vast majority of the Internet give a shit about their precious hollywood contracts?
In practice, as long as Javascript remains in its present form, they will be able to effect this sort of discrimination, but the W3C doesn't need to actively promote brokenness.
Their HTML5 solution relies on their own closed browser-specific plug-in (EME CDM) and browser vendors that don't have Netflix's license are unable (both technically and legally in US) to use it.
So they continue to use plugin that runs their native code. The only change is that they've taken away leverage that NPAPI gave Microsoft and browser vendors.