Do you think we really need DRM, though? I've been using the web without it for a while, and I just boycott sites or services that require it.
More to the point, I think that the current DRM scheme is inherently and completely broken. I could use it and let websites pretend it's useful, but it's not worth the increased quantity of proprietary code to me.
I don't like DRM myself but there are a very large number of users that like to use services which wouldn't stream content otherwise. Just like any protection mechanism it doesn't have to be perfectly impossible to break to provide value to someone.
The nice thing about the way EME was implemented is if you aren't one of those users you can simply disable Widevine or (if you prefer to not even have proprietary code on your computer) use a build that doesn't include it.
DRM does exactly what it was meant to do: remove rights from the folks who play by the rules.
The public premise that DRM is about stopping "piracy" was always a lie. Obviously, it can't do that. In fact, DRM encourages piracy by reducing the value of non-pirated versions of things.
DRM exists to control and manipulate regular, honest customers, such as making them watch ads or to pay over and over for different copies of the same thing even when they actually have the legal right to make copies for their own use.
Yes, because enough content hosts absolutely refuse to make their content available without DRM, and enough users are willing to switch browsers to one that will show that content, that even Mozilla finally gave in after years of fighting against it. In the end they were afraid that they'd lose enough users that they wouldn't be able to continue the project any more. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
More to the point, I think that the current DRM scheme is inherently and completely broken. I could use it and let websites pretend it's useful, but it's not worth the increased quantity of proprietary code to me.