HTML5: DRM integration and Netflix

In April, the W3C will have to decide once and for all on the standardization plan for Encrypted Media Extension (EME). This technology, loudly demanded by Netflix et al., Is described by its opponents as a DRM within traditionally open web standards.

EME: behind this term a little obscure hides a conflict deemed fundamental by the defenders of the web and free software. The controversy is not new: the Encrypted Media Extensions is a technology similar to a DRM, a tool to control the diffusion of films or works protected by copyright. With the emergence of a major player in the field of streaming (Netflix, of course, you are thinking), the pressure has gradually strengthened at W3C so that the web standards organization introduces a mechanism of this type within the standard HTML5.

W3C Steeplebreaks

The debate has been raging since 2013, but the task force assigned to this task at the W3C must now reach a final decision. The last proposal of the working group was published on 16 March. This is the result of the work of the group dedicated to EME, which obviously includes Netflix, but also other players such as Microsoft and Google.


This proposal is now in the hands of the consortium's advisory committee, which has until April 13 to make its decision. The committee can choose to accept the proposal and make it a new web standard, or may ask the working group to review its copy.

The issue of the Encrypted Media Extension has been raging for several years within the W3C, with on the one hand fierce opponents of this idea and on the other side of the defenders of the principle. The argument often put forward by opponents of this system is that EMEs introduce proprietary code into web standards, which until then were entirely free.


This solution is likely to cause many edge effects and in particular raises the question of the ability of independent security researchers to audit the code of this technology in search of fault. On the other side, the defenders of the EME explain that this technology is necessary to allow the development of service of video in streaming without questioning the copyright.

It is interesting to note that browsers did not wait for the W3C decision to implement the EME: Chrome was one of the first to propose it, and Firefox, in spite of its initial opposition to the project, eventually ranked Competition and also introduce EME technology. In this context, it is difficult to hope that the opponents of standardization of the EMEs can succeed.