I still remember the controversy surrounding EME, a LOT of people came out against it (including the EFF[0]); despite that, they still triumphed on[1].
DRM should be inconvenient and expensive. There have always been ways to implement DRM security theater for the comfort of content providers in board rooms.
The media ecosystem is not going to be enhanced by making DRM more restrictive. Netflix could completely deactivate all DRM today, and it would change nothing.
Apple completely abandoned their "FairPlay" iTunes music DRM because it became evident that it was not needed.
Apple in no way abandoned FairPlay. Every file on Apple Music, and iTunes Match is protected with it. And those greatly outnumber transactional sales through the iTunes store, by an order of magnitude. The customer picked the DRMed version, every time.
Good. DRM should be external to the browser, not integrated into it.
DRM is mostly security theater anyway. Until a few years ago, the Spotify client just left unencrypted mp3s cached locally. And they stopped DRMing music over a decade ago. People are willing to pay a reasonable price for first party content.
If a company insist on DRM, then they should be on their own.
If we make it too easy, then they will just use it everywhere.
Yes, but that is fairly recent! Did anyone even notice? For years, you could siphon every song you listened to and save it locally. But did it affect anything? I did it for a little while, but then found it wasn't worth the trouble.
[0]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objectio... [1]: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media