What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none. Current DRM just pick their own license and that means many are incompatible. Some is binary blobs, some aren't. Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if there were a standard?
There is a limit to what standards can and should do. At some point it will do more harm than good, and that point is basically reached when there is no common ground. DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for drm producers.
> What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none.
There is a very simple reason for that: DRM and Free Software are fundamentally incompatible. So you cannot have a free software license that would allow for DRM software released under that license to restrict users (by definition: DRM violates freedom #0).
> Current DRM just pick their own license and that means many are incompatible. Some is binary blobs, some aren't. Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if there were a standard?
No, it would be better if we stopped trying to play nice to the DRM conspiracy.
> DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for DRM producers.
... I don't know what definition of free software you're using. But according to mine, DRM violates freedom #0 by definition. And the DMCA means that DRM also effectively violates freedom #1 (namely removing the DRM) too.
Some publishers just use flash to manage digital media, and there is free FLOSS version of flash. It is not very effective as copy protection, but drm is not the same as copy protection as Denuvo often points out.
If one look outside of the webrowser, there is also tools like tmp-tools, as linux have tpm support for quite a time now.
As copy protection they are either ineffective or, to use a security term, broken. Some companies care about that and will not use it, while others will (know several examples, like the Swedish national TV, which has broken copy protection but don't care/mind). This is why such standard would be a poor choice, and having no standard is better when there a well established understanding that a significant portion of implementation will be standard incompatible.
EME is bad because a significant portion of website will not work universally on all machines. The current system is better, and all EME is doing is causing is placing the DRM battlegrounds on W3C rather than making innovation for the web.
tmp-tools is libraries/tools to talk to TPM's on a linux system. Using them, one can implement concepts like trusted boot, and there were/is a patch to grub for that.
There is a limit to what standards can and should do. At some point it will do more harm than good, and that point is basically reached when there is no common ground. DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for drm producers.