The below is a list of present equipment used by the Indian Army and the Indian Army’s future equipment procurement. With the adoption of standards, consumers will be better off at least in part, because DRM-encoded media will play on all types of equipment. This DRM proposal is one of more disruptive ones out there, because it requires media and equipment that can read the broadcast flag. A disc with unprotected video can play on any DVD player, but video with a broadcast flag will only record and play on VCPS-prepared players. If the broadcast flag says a program is protected, a DVR or DVD recorder won’t be able to record it. For example, when you play a DVD that won’t let you skip the trailers, that has nothing to do with protecting a copyright. The area of most concern to activists regarding DRM has to do with the fact that current DRM trends surpass the protections afforded under traditional copyright law. Sony recalled the millions of discs with this DRM software combination built in and has agreed to issue tools that make the hidden files visible.

In 2005, for instance, Sony BMG distributed select CDs (one estimate puts the number of titles at 20) that led to lawsuits, backtracking and a public-relations nightmare. Holahan, Catherine. “Sony BMG plans to drop DRM.” BusinessWeek. The DRM-provider Macrovision used an interesting approach in one of its recent DVD-protection products. Each one of these assaults is a dismal failure for the Confederates. Wilton Greens is one of South West Sydney’s newest masterplanned communities, located in Wilton. Instead of making a DVD uncopyable, Macrovision RipGuard exploits glitches in DVD ripping software to prevent copying. Macrovision programmers studied DeCSS to discover its flaws and then built RipGuard to trigger those flaws and shut down the copying process. Their best bet is the chance that programmers will somehow quantify “fair use” so that computers can understand the concept. Under copyright law, the fair use doctrine gives a consumer the right to make copies of copyrighted content for their own use. The incident has raised questions regarding just how far copyright holders are allowed to go to protect their content. Consumer rights’ groups are lobbying Congress to amend the section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that makes disabling a DRM system against the law, claiming that it gives an improper advantage to copyright holders by not placing limits on the type of DRM schemes they can employ.

In the increasingly embattled realm of digital content, we’re left to wonder whether any DRM system can satisfy both copyright holders and consumers. Several companies said that his research would assist people in bypassing DRM schemes, which is illegal in the United States. Many people including, as they are now called, the insumisos (“defiant ones”, conscientious objectors) argued and worked for non-violent strategies. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes disabling a DRM system illegal in the United States, but many people actively seek and publish methods to bypass DRM restrictions. As DRM becomes standardized across industries, the result will be what experts call “trusted computing.” In this setup, DRM methods will ensure the protection of copyrighted content along each step of the way, from the production or upload process to the purchase or download to the use of the digital content once it’s in the user’s hands. It’s not only illegal to get around DRM, but it’s also illegal to create, purchase or download any product that enables you to bypass DRM restrictions.

Even more than consumers, though, libraries and educational institutions that archive and lend digital content have a lot to lose if highly restrictive DRM software becomes the norm. A library can’t archive a piece of software with a time-limited encryption key, and it can’t lend out a machine-specific license for viewing content using its traditional lending structure. DVD consumers have already found ways around RipGuard, though, mostly by using ripping software that doesn’t employ DeCSS or by tweaking the code in DeCSS-based rippers. Third-party vendors can’t develop software-specific products and plug-ins if the computer code in that software is indefinitely protected by DRM, and consumers can’t legally tinker with their own hardware if it’s protected by a DRM scheme that prohibits alteration. As we saw in the case of Sony-BMG , secretly tracking consumer activities and hiding files on a user’s computer invades user privacy — they’re the methods of a spyware application, not a legitimate rights management scheme. The XCP uproar is primarily about the software’s other activities.