"Lesser of two evils". I prefer a nicely sandboxed and secured EME plugin over the insecure and clunkly silverlight pipelight trickery that was necessary before.
If Google was only implementing DRM to tick boxes, they wouldn't be implementing "extracurriculars" like hardware-based DRM on ChromeOS devices.
They wouldn't own the very DRM company whose product they're peddling, a company which advertises to the very industry which is supposedly forcing Google's hand. http://www.widevine.com/
Now, what exactly is the point in implementing a more secure DRM variant (which as far as I can tell uses remote attestation) if content remains available to more 'vulnerable' platforms? We even have a potential lockin motive by Google here, too. I can see it now: "Only available on ChromeOS."
Did you know that Netflix only supports up to 720p on Chrome and Firefox? Because the DRM in those is easy to circumvent. People want higher than 720p, so browsers implement better DRM.
True, but I was thinking more about the part where they sell music streaming services (Google Play Music, YouTube Red). Maybe I am wrong since they are not producers, but I considered this as being part of the media industry.
In order to confirm the plugin is in control of your computer, enough to prevent you from copying the precious bits, how sandboxed do you really think the DRM is? It has to have its claws like a rootkit into your machine in order to be "secure". How sandboxed can it be then?
Blame the media industry for forcing it.