I argued this seemingly endlessly here and on the W3C mailing list.  I lost, too.<p>The W3C has become convinced that if it doesn&#x27;t adopt DRM into the &#x27;open web&#x27; (thereby destroying it), it will become irrelevant because content producers will boycott the web.  What they don&#x27;t seem to understand is that DRM-encumbered content is not part of the open web _anyway_, by definition; there is no benefit to companies making it available on DRM-encumbered &#x27;web sites&#x27; versus proprietary app-store apps.<p>It&#x27;s very hard to talk about this in detail with those pushing for DRM, because they claim that the requirements incumbent upon <i>them</i> to support DRM are secret, and can&#x27;t be shared with the public.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boingboing.net&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;14&#x2F;requirements-for-drm-in-html5.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boingboing.net&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;14&#x2F;requirements-for-drm-in-htm...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7055016" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7055016</a><p>I <i>think</i> the reason for this is &#x27;crisis of representation&#x27;; that is, those voices on the W3C pushing for DRM are very large, very well funded, and have good access to key decision-makers (like Berners-Lee and Jaffe).<p>The end result is something that <i>looks</i> like a sensible, consultative approach to developing standards but is in fact not.