W3C implementing DRM is only an extension of W3C implementing encryption.
And W3C implementing encryption is a Good Thing, IMHO.
DRM may be a stupid, silly idea: one that causes more problems than solved; one that can and will be circumvented. For media you have purchased to own, it is arguably Evil(tm).
But for media that you have rented, or media that you have access to via a subscription? I don't see the problem with it. The bigger discussion shouldn't be about DRM, but about the new commercial paradigm of not even owning the copies of the media you purchase outright. DRM in this case is a red herring.
in the scenario of "you can get more bandwidth" who is being screwed?
And the answer is: the same person, if you just look at the whole issue instead of the single positive angle.
Of course, if you think that DRM is a good thing (i.e. inability to have open source implementations, need to load binary blobs, limiting use of content to what the provider decides etc) then yes, DRM is exactly like encryption for you.
Yet, since there is a substantial number of people who do _not_ believe it, this still makes the two things different.
And W3C implementing encryption is a Good Thing, IMHO.
DRM may be a stupid, silly idea: one that causes more problems than solved; one that can and will be circumvented. For media you have purchased to own, it is arguably Evil(tm).
But for media that you have rented, or media that you have access to via a subscription? I don't see the problem with it. The bigger discussion shouldn't be about DRM, but about the new commercial paradigm of not even owning the copies of the media you purchase outright. DRM in this case is a red herring.