One pragmatic approach would be to continue to support existing DRM -- but only for the largest most established existing players like Netflix.
This would make DRM a problem for the content providers, because Netflix would then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with DRM. That's not good for their ability to have any leverage while negotiating.
A similar situation played out with iTunes, and we've got DRM-free music available for sale now.
> Netflix would then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with DRM
To rephrase Archer, "Do you want the DOJ to be involved in the creation of (global) web standards through antitrust lawsuits? Because that's how you get the DOJ involved in the creation of web standards through antitrust lawsuits."
I'm not sure there would be market harm from this outcome, which would be required for the DoJ to intervene.
Content creators would remain free to license their content using their own technologies.
Apple has successfully shut down people that created implementations compatible with Apple's DRM. To be clear, these people were not breaking Apple's DRM. They were "protecting content" using DRM that was iTunes/iPod compatible, and Apple shut that down.
This would make DRM a problem for the content providers, because Netflix would then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with DRM. That's not good for their ability to have any leverage while negotiating.
A similar situation played out with iTunes, and we've got DRM-free music available for sale now.