DRM is protection of content from the consumer itself. The consumer is going to consume the data through an analogue channel. This channel will always be the source of extracting redistributable content. The very premise of DRM rules out any 100%-solution and sets it as obfuscation.<p>I feel it might be stupid idea but it is not impractical.<p>The effort of extracting content should be less than the maximum value that can be generated by redistribution. Thus, returns from piracy diminishes as you go from softwares to video to image to text. The effort of extracting an image is too easy via analogue hole. This is assuming an open technology ecosystem not exactly the RMS world but at least Linus or perhaps Mozilla. The enforcers of the DRM do the sensible thing of spreading their proprietary black boxes to as much people, until, they can shut down their doors to the rest of community. That is precisely when certain open source foundations too had to back down. That is how you can enjoy netflix only within your chrome browser.<p>What bothers me is why are they trying to make it into the standards. If it is built into the standards, it will be built into the downloaders as well. Remember what happened with HLS AES encryption, it is now built into the video downloaders itself. While I understand benefits of standardization, how it  has given shape to tech, it might not be true with something so un-technical as DRM. If you do want obfuscation, at least do not make it standard procedure. You know very well that the strongest DRM can not be technically secure.