<\/p>\n
The Foundation is of the opinion that Encrypted Media Extensions<\/a>\u00a0(EME) ought not to be released as a W3C Recommendation, and we are currently disclosing the formal objection that the Ethereum Foundation presented to the W3C against the endorsement of EME.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As a participant in the W3C, the Ethereum Foundation engages in the standard-setting process and casts votes on issues including the EME recommendation. Numerous developers and researchers at the Ethereum Foundation undertake security investigations and develop software that utilize web technology, and from that viewpoint, we raise objections towards EME and Digital Rights Management<\/a> (DRM) broadly. Most individuals who utilize web browsers are impacted by EME.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The direct consequence of EME\u2019s prevalence thus far is that browser creators have already incorporated potentially insecure DRM technologies as there have been no options to disable it across any of the leading browsers. Even though EME was just recently sanctioned as a recommended standard, closed-source DRM implementations have existed in our browsers, including open-source browsers like Firefox<\/a>, for numerous years.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As developers, researchers, and community participants, we have already encountered objectionable DRM implementations and firmly believe measures should be taken to halt further uptake. In other terms, we consider the recommendation of EME as a standard to be a step in an undesirable direction as it restricts the Open Web<\/a> and contradicts the fundamental values, mission, and design principles of W3C<\/a>. The statement detailed below outlines the rationale behind the Ethereum Foundation\u2019s objections and why we believe the W3C should not proceed with endorsing EME as a W3C standard.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The subsequent statement was presented to the W3C with a Formal Objection<\/em> on April 13, 2017. Please note that modifications have been made for clarity and readability.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Ethereum Foundation respectfully opposes the publication of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) as a Recommendation and requests that this initiative be terminated.<\/strong> <\/p>\n Concern: EME addresses scenarios outside the realm of the Open Web.<\/strong> <\/p>\n Concern: EME-specified DRM hampers legitimate usage, with minimal benefits in return.<\/strong> <\/p>\n We believe W3C Recommendations should not dictate, even if indirectly via EME, the implementation or facilitation of software that obstructs legitimate functionalities for users.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Concern: EME does not promote the web’s growth.<\/strong> <\/p>\n Concern: EME undermines security.<\/strong> <\/p>\n We acknowledge and value the serious endeavors undertaken by members of the HTML Media Extensions Working Group<\/a> to mitigate the exposure of security researchers. However, no consensus could be reached regarding an Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a> (EFF) proposed covenant in which W3C members and their associates would commit to “non-aggression” concerning initiating 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1203 actions against security researchers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In fact, this is a moment when the W3C ought to adopt a firmer stance to safeguard genuine security research, especially when Internet users globally feel more insecure and less protected than ever.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nThe Ethereum Foundation aims to foster a more globally accessible, freer, and more reliable Internet. We cannot realize our mission without objecting to EME. If endorsed by the W3C, EME and the Content Decryption Module (CDM) implementations it endorses, will diminish accessibility, restrict freedom on the Internet, undermine security research, and even erode trust among users and developers in the broader Internet community. Should it be endorsed, EME will also infringe upon many significant components of W3C’s own mission statement and design principles.<\/p>\n
\nThroughout history, the W3C has offered Recommendations for the Open Web platform. However, the W3C’s specification regarding this form of interaction, particularly with DRM, is unprecedented and raises concerns, particularly as it endorses an opaque, non-open technology. What regulations are established to restrict this proliferation of the W3C’s Recommendations into the non-open web? Software that falls outside the W3C mission and that is also highly objectionable to a significant portion of W3C members should not be encompassed within W3C Recommendations.<\/p>\n
\nWe maintain that the advantages reaped by media owners from DRM implementations do not justify the restrictions faced by users. DRM does not significantly prevent copyright violations. Copyright infringers are unlikely to bypass DRM if the media they seek is freely accessible from alternative sources. While providing scant copyright protection benefits, DRM deprives users of valuable functionalities such as extending, commenting on, annotating, modifying content for artistic endeavors, or altering content to facilitate access for individuals with disabilities. All of these applications, typically valued highly in the W3C Recommendation process, are obstructed by DRM.<\/p>\n
\nWe assert that the long-term development referenced in the W3C’s mission statement primarily pertains to the web’s potential for new and unanticipated applications. EME’s contribution to growth merely benefits non-extensible, non-interoperable, and non-open web content, which does little to foster network effects. Thus, the growth objective of the W3C is not advanced if EME is adopted as a Recommendation.<\/p>\n
\nTo uphold a secure Open Web, security researchers must be able to conduct their work in both a technical and legal framework. By formally making a Recommendation, the W3C mandates that security researchers carry out analyses of all major implementations of that Recommendation. In recommending EME, the W3C is thereby subjecting valid security researchers within the community to potential legal risks and even prosecution within the United States.<\/p>\n