Web Copy-Protection As A Censorship Tool

There has been ongoing work at the W3C for some time to standardize “Encrypted Media Extensions” (EME), with the usual claims that many publishers will refuse to offer their content without this kind of “protection”. The mitigating argument has been made that such a “feature” would be optional--the browser user could always turn it off. Well, it turns out Google has removed the option to disable its implementation of EME from Chrome. A further worry is that many countries’ copyright laws include provisions that prohibit the circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms. So work by security researchers to audit browsers that implement EME could be interpreted as violations of such provisions. Many have requested that the W3C explicitly state that EME conformance cannot be (ab)used in such a way, but so far it has refused. <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170201/14285436609/codification-web-drm-as-censorship-tool.shtml>

Another article about the EME controversy <https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/02/future-of-the-www-timbl-drm/> suggests that perhaps the reason the W3C is so willing to give in to Big Content over this issue is because of its financial problems.
participants (1)
-
Lawrence D'Oliveiro