Due to the many hackers around the world, the World Wide Web is in need of a security update. The World Wide Web Consortium has chosen to include Encrypted media Extension, a standard designed for copy protecting streaming video. The standard isn’t perfect by any means, but the W3C claims internet users must still deal with content decryption modules developed by vendors. For now, it’s better than the approach media creators have been working with, so that’s a plus.
Not everyone likes the new standard
Nonetheless, there are several detractors who believe the W3C decided to ignore concerns for the sake of expediency.
Furthermore, the new format sets regular outlooks for privacy and security, which means, a company is not able to send unnecessary network traffic without giving users the option to delete data.
Interestingly enough, the new format works perfectly for newcomers to the world of streaming as they do not have to force Internet users to install a media plugin to stream content. Additionally, Encrypted Media Extensions may also aid the vision or hearing impaired by working at a point where it doesn’t meddle with accessibility and playback.
When it comes down to open source software, the standard should work just fine, which is a huge step over what was available before.
Here are some of the problems with EME
When decrypting video, there’s no shared interface between approaches. Right now, the organization is looking into how it can inject one in the future, but it won’t happen for quite some time. The primary reason is that the W3C did not intend to withhold the original spec.
Likewise, the W3C did not believe it was worthwhile to pursue what is known as a covenant, as it promises companies shouldn’t have the authority to break the law in a bid to crack down on users with real reasons to bypass the EME.
Now, what if folks want to archive content for the sake of posterity? The group views this as a problem for DRM and copyright law, but not the hooks designed to integrate DRM.
These are the decisions that have left advocates of openness angry. A digital rights activist, Cory Doctorow, who is no fan of digital Copy Protection, laid out the reasons he’s against the W3C decisions.
He claims that without the covenant, it’ll be difficult to tell if companies are living up to security and privacy practices. With this new standard, it’s possible for businesses to throw a lawsuit at security researchers should they point out how to bypass DRM. Furthermore, the need to have licensed decryption could favor the likes of Amazon and Netflix.
Money might not be an issue, but the mess of many patent licenses could turn ugly. Weirdly enough, if a consumer who is located in the EU, but wants to watch a film from the United States, this might be a problem despite being technically legal.
