* "[I]f content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C, better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible, and better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source, and available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box. Those are key arguments for the decision that this topic is in scope." *
* "Content protection", of which DRM is only one. So the other forms of content protection should still be in scope, and open to discussion
* "better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible" -- I can't get my head around how EME is an open standard when the key component that gives it value is a proprietary / licensed / FOSS-incompatible black box.
* "better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source" -- again, building around a proprietary blackbox can't be the open source solution in spirit. The proprietary blackbox taints the rest of the stack "like a cancer" [1]
* "available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box" -- I wonder what the definition of a general purpose computer is. I worry it's limited to computing platforms owned by Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
* "Those are key arguments for the decision that this topic is in scope". Amen. The technology stack that EME is designing for assumes the answers to these four points, and so seems to reject solutions (e.g. watermarking) that question these assumptions, based in part by confidential agreements between Netflix and the movie industry.
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...