Thanks for the explanation. My level of not understanding is more basic than your explanation.

But I think I'm getting the issue if you say that under this policy, you wouldn't be able to save a copy of some data without a DRM and play it. For example, you couldn't copy a youtube video even if the owner gave you permission. (I don't know if you can do this now because of youtube, but that's the principle.)

I really do care when my software is working against me. I just wasn't sure in what way this was supposed to be doing that.

Maybe I can ask in another way. Does this mean that no new browser today could get around the standard that the W3C set as the author is explaining here?

This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new browser.

This is the opposite of every W3C standard to date: once, all you needed to do to render content sent by a server was follow the standard, not get permission. If browsers had needed permission to render a page at the launch of Mozilla, the publishers would have frozen out this new, pop-up-blocking upstart. Kiss Firefox goodbye, in other words.

What would have to change for there to be a browser to change this feature?