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.
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.