The proliferation of DRM technology may look like the result of bad consumer choices, but the reality is more nuanced. What percentage of consumers know that their content is DRM encumbered, or what DRM is even? This is a result of subtle consumer behaviour manipulation.
Let's take the case of widevine itself. It wouldn't have proliferated if Encrypted Media Encryptions (EME) standard wasn't shoehorned into web standards by Google. EME allowed companies like Netlify and Spotify to demand proprietary plugins like Widevine in an otherwise completely open standard. Independent browser implementations became impossible at that point. EFF and Mozilla protested. EFF withdrew from W3C and Mozilla was arm twisted into agreeing. Now look at this from consumer perspective. Vast majority of users simply wouldn't have noticed these moves that would ruin the web in some way for them later. Most of them wouldn't have noticed DRM being rolled out. Everything seems to be normal - for a while. With this and a few other moves, it's clear that DRM based content will be unviable on independent browsers and open operating systems. At that point, most consumers will negligently decide that these browsers and OSs can't play DRM content because of software quality issues, and will switch over to locked down systems. That wouldn't have happened if DRM was presented as is to consumers from the beginning itself.
A few people who hate DRM holding out is not a solution for this. At this point, consumers have funded DRM based streaming companies to grow into megacorps and they have killed their competition. For consumers, it will be a choice between freedom of platform choice and availability of media. This is why EME should never have been allowed in the first place.
Another example of the futility of 'Don't use what you don't like' argument is Chrome. Chrome gained market share over Firefox using similar tactics. Now we don't have a viable alternative for blink web engine. This is an ambush on consumer rights - sneaking in silently and then killing it.
Let's take the case of widevine itself. It wouldn't have proliferated if Encrypted Media Encryptions (EME) standard wasn't shoehorned into web standards by Google. EME allowed companies like Netlify and Spotify to demand proprietary plugins like Widevine in an otherwise completely open standard. Independent browser implementations became impossible at that point. EFF and Mozilla protested. EFF withdrew from W3C and Mozilla was arm twisted into agreeing. Now look at this from consumer perspective. Vast majority of users simply wouldn't have noticed these moves that would ruin the web in some way for them later. Most of them wouldn't have noticed DRM being rolled out. Everything seems to be normal - for a while. With this and a few other moves, it's clear that DRM based content will be unviable on independent browsers and open operating systems. At that point, most consumers will negligently decide that these browsers and OSs can't play DRM content because of software quality issues, and will switch over to locked down systems. That wouldn't have happened if DRM was presented as is to consumers from the beginning itself.
A few people who hate DRM holding out is not a solution for this. At this point, consumers have funded DRM based streaming companies to grow into megacorps and they have killed their competition. For consumers, it will be a choice between freedom of platform choice and availability of media. This is why EME should never have been allowed in the first place.
Another example of the futility of 'Don't use what you don't like' argument is Chrome. Chrome gained market share over Firefox using similar tactics. Now we don't have a viable alternative for blink web engine. This is an ambush on consumer rights - sneaking in silently and then killing it.