as I've stated on the HTML WG mailing list and elsewhere, I don't think the "DRM in HTML5" moniker it's inaccurate or misleading at all. I stand by my statement that the EME proposal is putting DRM into HTML5. I think the spec spends a great deal of time weasel wording around the concept of 'protection' vs. just coming out and saying that it's a DRM plugin architecture.
While the proposal states that it is not defining a DRM plugin system, that is by far the primary purpose of the specification. While DRM isn't explicitly required, that is what is going to use the EME specification. I haven't seen a single non-DRM use case for EME that can't be done with the Web stack we have today.
I never said DRM is evil, as it is just a technology and it's the use of the technology that is evil/good/whatever. You're projecting other people's opinions onto what I'm saying and losing my message in the churn.
The bottom line is that the proposal is about DRM. I make no value judgement on that. I've built DRM systems. I know that you can't often get content from content companies without them. However, to pretend that the spec is about 'protection' and not 'DRM' comes across as very disingenuous.
I read the spec, multiple times, and digested it. I think the parts of it that are broken can probably be fixed or removed. I don't think the specification is evil. I think the specification doesn't clearly state what the goal of the specification is, the ClearKey mechanism is a really bad feature to make an implementation requirement, it could lead to some really nasty CDM management complexity for browsers in the future, and spends a great deal of time weasel wording around the DRM issue.
If the spec was built on this theme: "The Web Platform needs to provide a DRM solution for content companies who refuse to go DRM-free. The Web Platform is competing against Flash and Silverlight. If we don't do this, then content companies will use the more error-prone-stack of proprietary plugins such as Flash or Silverlight to accomplish their goals. This is the lesser of two evils." ... then I'd be a bit more okay with the spec. However, it doesn't do this and supporters of the specification keep repeating that this isn't about DRM when it clearly is about DRM.