HTML DRM is antithetical to the Open Web itself. It was built on a sham of "plugin-free" media playback, but all we did was change Flash and Silverlight for a whole range of closed black boxes, which in turn are effectively all controlled by Big Media (to make it crystal clear: EME was built with third-party decryption modules in mind, and Big Media was obviously never going to support any sort of decryption modules that they couldn't control, so even if your custom browser supports EME it's completely useless without a Big Media-approved decryption module). And make no mistake: Requiring permission from Big Media to essentially build a fully-fledged browser is a 100% intended and expected outcome of HTML DRM as conceived. Big Media would love nothing more than to turn the entirety of the Open Web into Closed Web that they control, and with HTML DRM they've certainly achieved a great step toward doing so, to the detriment of public at wide. I'm sure they're positively salivating about the thought of eventually reaching The Right to Read!
It's _always_ been about control on the creation and manufacture of playback platforms and/or devices.
content is no longer the only draw. the business goal is now monetizing the group experience. consider Fortnite. Companies won't care if a few people watch pirated content alone. They want to control the experience of group content consumption. This does require content, but managing the group experience is the new frontier. consider http://rabb.it Pirates can get ppl in groups to watch premium content, but at some size, authorities will show up to protect their property.
What counts is whether adding DRM increases revenues enough to warrant the effort needed to add DRM.
there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.
It's just what big media has happened to get away with.
If they found themselves without a way for their paying customers to access their content via DRM, they'd drop the requirement on the spot, with little to no financial impact except for DRM scheme licensing fees.
Most studios really wouldn't find blocking all PC access to their content to materially affect them.
But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
You just want the DRM users content but you want it without DRM.
So what really happened is the content producers enticed the users into DRM with their content. It's the other way around, and the consumers voted with their wallet (and clicks)
And why would anyone follow this standard?
Much less guff to download.
As interesting to read as the first twelve times.
Hell, I'm fairly certain he had a deal with Barnes and Noble to publish his book without DRM which was nonstandard at the time.
He used(still does?) publish his books free of DRM and free to download under CC license.
It would be strange for an author of Printcrime (fantastic short read from 20 years ago) to support DRM.