We’ve had DRM in browsers for a while now in the shape of EME and its associated technologies but we haven’t asked ourselves what does it do or if it works or not.
To help frame the issue I’ve taken a section of Henri Sivonen’s article What is EME to frame the post.
Major Hollywood studios require that companies that license movies from them for streaming use DRM between the streaming company and the end-user. Traditionally, in the Web context, this has been done by using the Microsoft PlayReady DRM component inside the Silverlight plug-in or the Adobe Access DRM component inside Flash Player. As the HTML/CSS/JS platform gains more and more capabilities, the general need to use Silverlight or Flash becomes smaller and smaller, such that soon the video DRM capability will be the only thing that Silverlight and Flash have but the HTML/CSS/JS platform doesn’t.
Proposals have been written to augment
What is EME?
With a basic understanding of what technologies are involved let’s dive into EME and what all the controversy is about.
EME and W3C
I was disappointed when I saw that EME had been published as a recommendation but I was even more disappointed that there were no provisions for researchers and archival tools exceptions. The excuse of “if we don’t implement DRM it on the web companies that need/want it will go somewhere else” badly underestimates the reach of piracy and ignores that the web is not necessarily a driver for it. Encryption on the web doesn’t stop people outside the web ecosystem from contributing to piracy and making the content available shortly after it becomes available.
Because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (passed in 1998 in the US) and the EU Copyright Directive (passed in 2001) include provisions to prevent circumvention of DRM, it is impossible to implement DRM tools and, therefore EME support in open source products. Likewise, security researchers, people who need to modify encrypted content to enhance its accessibility, and people working to archive media content are not allowed to circumvent the EME encryption and don’t have access to the source material.
So yes, we can watch Netflix on the browser but, at what cost?.
So, how does EME work?
Other than my philosophical opposition to DRM in general, my biggest problem with EME is that it leaves a lot of behavior up to the implementors of the CDM. The theory of how EME works is relatively simple.
These steps are taken from Sam Dutton’s What is EME? article in Google Developers.
- A web application attempts to play audio or video that has one or more encrypted streams.
- The browser recognizes that the media is encrypted and fires an encrypted event with metadata obtained from the media about the encryption.
- The application handles the encrypted event:
- If no MediaKeys object has been associated with the media element, first select an available Key System to check what Key Systems are available, then create a MediaKeys object for an available Key System via a
MediaKeySystemAccess object. The initialization of the MediaKeys object should happen before the first encrypted event. Getting a license server URL is done by the app independently of selecting an available key system. A
MediaKeys object represents all the keys available to decrypt the media for an audio or video element. It represents a CDM instance and provides access to the CDM, specifically for creating key sessions, which are used to obtain keys from a license server.
- Once the MediaKeys object has been created, assign it to the media element, so that its keys can be used during playback, i.e. during decoding.
- The app creates a MediaKeySession. This creates a
MediaKeySession, which represents the lifetime of a license and its associated key(s).
- The app generates a license request by passing the media data obtained in the encrypted handler to the CDM.
- The CDM fires a message event: a request to acquire a key from a license server.
- The MediaKeySession object receives the message event and the application sends a message to the license server (via XHR, for example).
- The application receives a response from the license server and passes the data to the CDM
- The CDM decrypts the media using the keys in the license. A valid key may be used, from any session within the MediaKeys associated with the media element
- Media playback resumes.
How does the browser know that media is encrypted?
This information is in the metadata of the media container file, which will be in a format such as ISO BMFF or WebM. For ISO BMFF this means header metadata, called the protection scheme information box. WebM uses the Matroska
ContentEncryption element, with some WebM-specific additions. Guidelines are provided for each container in an EME-specific registry.
Note that there may be multiple messages between the CDM and the license server, and all communication in this process is opaque to the browser and application: messages are only understood by the CDM and license server, although the app layer can see what type of message the CDM is sending. The license request contains a proof of the CDM’s validity (and trust relationship) as well as a key to use when encrypting the content key(s) in the resulting license.
But what do CDMs do?
An EME implementation does not in itself provide a way to decrypt media: it simply provides an API for a web application to interact with Content Decryption Modules.
What CDMs do is not defined by the EME spec, and a CDM may handle decoding (decompression) of media as well as decryption. From least to most robust, there are several potential options for CDM functionality:
- Decryption only, enabling playback using the normal media pipeline, for example via a
- Decryption and decoding, passing video frames to the browser for rendering.
- Decryption and decoding, rendering directly in the hardware (for example, the GPU).
There are multiple ways to make a CDM available to a web app:
- Bundle a CDM with the browser.
- Distribute a CDM separately.
- Build a CDM into the operating system.
- Include a CDM in firmware.
- Embed a CDM in hardware.
How a CDM is made available is not defined by the EME spec, but in all cases, the browser is responsible for vetting and exposing the CDM.
EME doesn’t mandate a particular Key System; among current desktop and mobile browsers, Chrome supports Widevine, IE11, and Edge before its migration to Chromium support PlayReady and Safari support FairPlay Streaming. This will become important when we look at Gatekeepers
Is it or isn’t it?
I think that the debate over EME is hanging on too much on semantics. Does it matter how the web got its DRM do we care about the process and how many people think the process was circumvented?
Adrian Rosselli makes the following point when criticizing Cory Doctorow’s Boing Boing
[…] what we are trying to do with EME is provide a clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element.
And that’s the crux of what the W3C is doing with DRM — developing a standard API so browsers can access content that will be locked down with or without their participation anyway.
This is part of the issue. While EME doesn’t provide DRM directly, it still enables it and, with it, all the baggage that DRM brings with it. By leaving many aspects of the technology unspecified it makes it possible for multiple competing products to restrict content in different ways and requiring one or more licenses for the content to play in the browser at all or requiring browsers to provide incompatible solutions that are at the mercy of content producers.
One of the things that worries me about the whole process that got EME to recommendation status was the unwillingness of the W3C leadership (and its largest members) to extend IPR protections to security researchers and people who need to break DRM to provide services to the users.
Existing copyright legislation in the US already forbids circumvention and gives copyright owners every legal justification to take you to court for doing so, even if you paid for the Blue Ray and even if you just want to make a copy so you don’t have to carry the external DVD player around.
The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Management) to rip the DVD, you’ve violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM… Some courts have tried to leaven this rather harsh rule, but most have not. While it’s typically hard to detect small-scale circumvention, the question is whether bypassing DRM is legal. The statute sets up some minor exceptions, but our ripper doesn’t fall into any of them. So, the moment a studio protects the DVD with DRM, it gains both a technical and a legal advantage—ripping is almost certainly unlawful.
Is It Legal to Rip a DVD That I Own?
If I understood this correctly, if I, as a security researcher, publish a paper or a blog post on issues with a CDM then it’s up to the copyright owner and the CDM vendor to decide if they will sue me on DMCA grounds and it would be up to me to prove that I did this in good faith and with no ulterior motive.
So why would I want to open myself to this risk? Under DMCA security researchers and academics have been arrested for violating section 1201. Why wouldn’t the people enabling DRM on the web want to protect me while I help hold CDM vendors accountable?
The nature of the beast
There are further restrictions that content distributors and movie studios can “request” from CDMs vendors and EME implementors. If they don’t comply then they won’t get to play that encrypted content using that vendor’s CDM.
Furthermore, the people who may be in the best position to ensure safety and reliability of DRM systems, security researchers can’t really reverse engineer systems to work through flaws and provide a fair evaluation of what the CDM (or any DRM implementation) is doing because, unless given permission, that would be circumvention and why would DRM vendors allow people to reverse engineer their DRM products?
I still have my worries as to what’s the next medium to claim for their copy protection scheme based on EME.
It comes to us as developers whether this is a technology that we want to support or not or if we believe that technology has a place in the web ecosystem.
I don’t believe it does.
Links and research
- The W3C position
- UNESCO letter
- JustNet Coalition letter
- EFF and Defective by Design
- Boing Boing
- Gatekeepers and Widevine issue
- The nature of the beast
- Is it or isn’t it?