The Foundation believes Encrypted media extensions (EME) should not be published as W3C recommendation, and we are now making public objection that the Ethereum Foundation has submitted to W3C opposing the EME recommendation.
As a member of the W3C, the Ethereum Foundation contributes to the process of standards and votes on issues such as the recommendation EME. Many developers and researchers from the Ethereum Foundation are driving research and safety construction software that uses web technology, and in this point of view, we have objections to Eme as well as to Digital rights management (DRM) in general. Most if not all people who use web browsers are affected by the EME.
The direct result of the EME’s success so far is that browser developers have already installed a potentially unsafe DRM technology because there was no option to deactivate it in any of the main browsers. Even if EME has not been approved only recently as a recommended standard, DRM implementations with closed source have been present in our browsers, Even open source browsers such as FirefoxFor many years.
As developers, researchers and members of the community, we have already been subjected to DRM reprehensible implementations and we believe that efforts should be made to stem a new adoption. In other words, we believe that the recommendation of the EME as a norm is a movement in the wrong direction because it inhibits the Openand is incompatible with the Fundamental values, mission and principles of W3C design. The declaration published below defines the reasons for the objections of the Ethereum Foundation and why we think that the W3C should not continue with a recommendation from the EME as a W3C standard.
The following declaration was submitted to the W3C with a Formal objection April 13, 2017. Please note that changes have been made for clarification and legibility purposes.
The Ethereum Foundation is respectively opposed to the publication of the extensions of the encrypted media (EME) as recommendation and requests that this effort be interrupted.
The Ethereum Foundation aims to build a more accessible, more free and reliable internet. We cannot work to fulfill our mission without opposing Eme. If it is recommended by the W3C, EME implementation and the content decryption module (CDM), IT sanctions will reduce accessibility, reduce freedom on the Internet, will be able to search for security and even erode confidence between users And developers in the largest Internet community. If it is recommended, Eme will also violate many important aspects of the mission statement and W3C design principles.
Problem: EME addresses use cases outside the field of open web.
The W3C has historically provided recommendations for the open web platform. However, the specification by W3C in this way of interaction, like that with DRM, is unprecedented and poses a concern, especially since it supports an opaque and not open technology. What policies are in place to limit this expansion of W3C recommendations on the unprecedented web? The software which is both outside the W3C mission and also very reprehensible to a large number of W3C members should not be addressed by the W3C recommendations.
Problem: DRM specified by EME obstructs legitimate use, with few things won accordingly.
We believe that the advantages acquired by media owners of DRM implementations are not worth the limits suffered by users. DRM does not offer much to hinder the violation of copyright. Copyright offenders probably escape DRM if the supports they wish are widely available via alternative sources. While offering few copyright protection services, DRM refuses users of valuable features, in particular extension, comments, annoting, changing content for artistic reasons or changing content to allow Access to disabled people. All these uses, normally held in high esteem in the W3C recommendation process, are blocked by DRM.
We believe that W3C recommendations should not specify, even if they are indirectly via EME, the implementation or activation of software that blocks legitimate features for users.
Problem: EME does not develop the web.
We believe that the long -term growth mentioned in the W3C mission statement is largely referred to the potential for the use of the web in a new and unforeseen manner. EME’s contribution to growth only benefits non-extensible, non-inter-operable and not open web content, which does not make much for the effects of the network. The W3C growth mission is therefore not served if EME becomes a recommendation.
Problem: Eme saps security.
In order to maintain a secure open web, security researchers must be able to do their work in the technical and legal sense. By officially making a recommendation, W3C forces security researchers to carry out safety analyzes of all the main implementations of this recommendation. By recommending the EME, the W3C therefore expose legitimate community security researchers to potential legal responsibility and even prosecution in the United States.
We understand and appreciate the serious efforts made by the members of the HTML media extensions working group To approach the exhibition of safety researchers. However, consensus could not be reached on a Electronic border foundation (EFF) proposed an alliance in which the members of the W3C and their affiliations would accept “non-aggression” with regard to putting 17 USC actions § 1203 against security researchers.
If anything, this is now a time when W3C should take a stronger position to defend legitimate security research when Internet users around the world feel less safe and less protected than ever.
Problem: EME forces the web to follow specific existing commercial models rather than allowing new forms of interaction.
The result of DRM’s implementation in web browsers would essentially define a standard, current proprietary systems and ways related to users and sell media. The EME would inhibit the potential models of a future decentralized web where blockchains and decentralized technologies could allow new commercial models and the management of property rights.
By recommending EME, the W3C encourages browser suppliers to install software that lacks transparency and disclosure to the user, which is contrary to the open web tradition and that many people hope that the next generation of technology will bring.
The W3C must be guided by its mission, its design principles and its values.
A W3C recommendation has a lot of weight. We believe that the organization should therefore not specify or guide technologies such as DRM which does not comply with the fundamental values of the W3C such as expressed in its mission and design principles, especially when the technology in question undermines Security, limits legitimate use and offers little potential to expand the web.
