That was already an alternative. One of the editors on this proposal is a Netflix employee; that should tell you something about the viability of that option.
Of course Netflix wants to control video steaming. They are free to accomplish their business goals by any other means: making their users download some software, shipping locked hardware to users, or sending employees to people's homes to make sure they don't copy anything. They are not free, however, to break the Web.
As far as I can see, nothing here prevents regular, un-DRM'd content being sent as HTML5 video just as it can be today. This seems to be adding an extra option, which is to send protected content as well.
There is clearly a demand from suppliers for this facility. As a consumer, your options right now are to accept the extra content protected, or not at all. You do not have the third alternative of accepting it unprotected, whether you think you should or not. A content provider is under no obligation to give you their material on your terms just because you would like them to. Declining to give you content at all is not breaking the Web, it's just saying they don't want you as a customer, and if you want to enjoy their content, that's your problem more than theirs.
Ultimately, technology is neutral, and how it is applied is what counts. A standardised version of protected video potentially allows more people access to more content using more diverse business models. Sure, some people will always point at that and say it will be abused in dubious ways. However, the most effective way to defeat any such abuses is to vote with your wallet. If the information-wants-to-be-free crowd are right and there really is plenty of profit to be made on unrestricted content and a large market segment who won't put up with DRM, then the DRM will die.
On the other hand, reasonably effective copy protection also makes low-cost models such as pay-per-view/rental or all-you-can-eat subscription commercially viable. That could very much be in the interests of a lot of people who don't want to pay the full price for a permanent copy of something they'll probably only ever watch once anyway. Such deals are never going to fly in today's culture if the terms are trivially violated, and this has been a serious bottleneck in terms of getting the best content onto on-line providers and ultimately to consumers for them to enjoy.
I'm starting to come over on your side a little bit. I don't care as much about DRM as you do, but I do care about breaking the Web. I'm not convinced this does that though.
To support this a user agent will need to implement one or more CDM that may include communicating with a DRM chip. For devices without the chip the web page won't render properly. We agree that this is undesirable, but it doesn't seem any different to me than the Capture API[1] that only works on devices with a camera or microphone.
Convince me, I'm leaning towards your position here.
One can always simulate a camera or microphone. Maybe you're mute, and you use text to speech software that presents itself to the OS APIs underlying the Capture API as a microphone.
Enshrining technology that has no other purpose than to restrict access to one's own computer into an international "open" standard is unacceptable. At some level in hardware or software there will always be a closed blob to prevent capturing the stream, so there will never be an open software and hardware implementation.
Giving DRM the blessing of the international web community is, effectively, giving Hollywood unfettered permission to be just as obstinate, manipulative, and anti-consumerist as ever.
This is a good argument. I think the difference is that without camera there's absolutely no other technical way a website (that uses cameras) can provide their services. It's an enabling technology, in a sense that it moves progress forward. With DRM chip, there is the other way -- streaming video without restrictions.
I'm just pushing the responsibility of action from Google et al to the W3C. I don't blame Netflix for wanting a better way to stream DRM'd videos. I would blame the W3C if they allowed Netflix to dictate what video on the web will consist of, for better or for worse.
