DVD Decrypter still the best?

[EnderW]

Is DVD Decrypter still the best app for ripping movies or has another replaced it?
Also, where can I get the last version of DVD Decrypter?

 

[XOR != OR]

Is DVD Decrypter still the best app for ripping movies or has another replaced it?
Also, where can I get the last version of DVD Decrypter?

1. Yes
2. Google?

 

[Perrupa]

I have yet to find one better than DVD Decrypter but they are no longer making new versions so far as I know. so I'd look on google for it. though I was wondering if it's illegal to use DVD Decrypter as I believe DVD Shrink is illegal to use in the US and was wondering if it's a similar situation though I believe I'm free as a bird up here in magical Canadaland.

http://www.dvdshrink.org/where.html
DVD Shrink is freeware. However, due to U.S. laws, we can't host nor directly link to it.
Please use the following search engine below to find your own copy:

Peace

 

[Tiny]

www.mrbass.org

 

[RavenD]

AFAIK, According to the DMCA, creating a copy or a protected disc - even for backup purposes - (DVD, music, software, etc) is illegal.

 

[Red Shirt]

AFAIK, According to the DMCA, creating a copy or a protected disc - even for backup purposes - (DVD, music, software, etc) is illegal.

MaximumPC had a great article on this recently. Copyright law says that you can make a single backup for yourself. The DMCA says that you cannot. The courts have not said which one is right for all cases, though they have made some case specific rulings.

Bottom line, if you make a copy and it is not for you, you are in deep trouble! LOL

Even if it is for you, you might be in trouble.

 

[coynatha]

Ya, even the FBI warning at the beginning of DVD's says "may constitue a felony".

So until it says "does constitute a felony", DVD Decrypter & Shrink will be used daily.

 

[Ice Czar]

AFAIK, According to the DMCA, creating a copy or a protected disc - even for backup purposes - (DVD, music, software, etc) is illegal.

creating software to break DeCSS is illegal (in several jurisdictions including the USA)
backing up your licensed data is your right (again in the US)


in here discussing legitimate backups is allowed
specifically discussing breaking copy protections isnt
a very fine line, an ap that as a matter of course circumevents copy protections being one thing, getting into the nuts and bolts of DeCSS another


cut and paste
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

correct BUT the context of the DCMA applies only in the USA and has NEVER applied to outside of US soil. So you are stating the obvious As for conflict, it might be but there is no grandfather clause. As soon as the DCMA v. fair use gets put into a court battle. Then we will see. But until that time. the DCMA stands and has not lost a court battle as of yet.

against it? Right the moron politicians that passed this craptacular law.

http://www.aldermanlawoffice.com/321StudiosDVDCopyingProductsViolateDMCA.shtml

Earlier this year, a California federal district court held, in 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. et al., that the making and selling of products that permit users to reproduce motion picture DVDs violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA&#8221. It is important to note that this case addresses the vicarious liability of manufacturers of copying products, rather than the fair use and other rights of purchasers of DVDs. Under the Copyright Act, legitimate owners of DVDs possess the right to make backup copies and other fair uses of their DVDs; manufacturers and sellers of products that assist these DVD owners in exercising their rights do not themselves possess such rights. Since suing home users is bad business, creators and sellers of copying and related products make safer defendants. Increasingly, then, lawsuits like this one will become the battleground between copyright owners and users, as inventive technology manufacturers produce more products, testing the parameters of the DMCA. Some would say that this decision favors the rights of copyright owners over those of legitimate users, and it remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit will affirm this case on appeal.

The standard for liability under the DMCA is whether an entire product or service has only limited commercially significant purposes other than to circumvent. If a single, commercially insignificant portion of either 321 product bypasses CSS, couldn’t the remainder of the product perform the commercially significant functions of, for example, making backup copies of public domain material, allowing fair uses of the DVDs, and/or permitting archival backup copies of legitimately purchased DVDs?[/B]


Section 1201(b) relates to copy control measures. 321 argued that CSS is not a copy control measure, since it controls only access to DVDs, rather than protecting rights of copyright ownership. So if 321’s products only circumvent CSS, section 1201(b)(1) is inapplicable.

The court disagreed: although CSS does control access to encrypted DVDs, the purpose of this access control is to control copying of those DVDs, since encrypted DVDs cannot be copied unless they are accessed. Thus, section 1201(b)(1) does apply.

It is a basic rule of statutory construction that Congress intends to give meaning to all provisions of a law. Thus, the court’s analysis is questionable, since it ignores the DMCA’s distinction between access and copy controls. Indeed, using the court’s logic, every case of access control will also raise copy control issues, since encrypted DVDs cannot be copied unless they are accessed.

321’s next series of arguments raised issues that concern many academics and other legitimate users of copyrighted content. Technological protection, they argue, does not have the flexibility and nuanced measures of protection contained in the fair use and related provisions of the Copyright Act and in negotiated legal agreements. 321 maintained that the primary and intended use of its software was to make copies of DVDs that are in the public domain; to make fair use of protected materials; and to provide single, archival backup copies of movies that a user has already purchased.

The court sidestepped these potential land mines by concluding that any legitimate downstream use by 321’s customers could not be imputed upstream to 321 for purposes of the DMCA. 321, therefore, violated section 1201(b)(1). The statute does not ban the act of circumventing use restrictions, the court reasoned. Rather, it addresses only the trafficking in and marketing of devices primarily designed to bypass use restriction technologies. Congress, in fact, sought to preserve the fair use rights of persons who had legally acquired a work.

Yet it is difficult to square this reasoning with the court’s prior conclusion that the purchase of a DVD does not give the purchaser the authority of the copyright owner to decrypt CSS. When confronted with an encrypted DVD, then, how does one exercise one’s fair use rights?

Moreover, ignoring the italicized language, above, is problematic. This case was decided on summary judgment, yet the court acknowledged that it was impossible to determine the factual question of the primary design of 321’s devices, since neither party produced significant evidence on the issue. Despite that fact, the court squarely held that 321 marketed its software for circumventing CSS, and was therefore in violation of the marketing provisions of sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1). That is, the court found that 321’s software was primarily designed and produced to bypass CSS, and marketed to the public for that use. However, if 321’s software were not primarily designed to aid in infringement, but instead created to make legitimate backup copies and permit fair use, would it still be barred by the DMCA?

while there has been finding limiting the development of products to defeat encryption by CSS
the DMCA applicability to infringe the Copyrights Act's provisions for the end user to backup a valid license hasnt been seriously challenged and would very likely not stand
in short if your an American Software company dont bother to develop a product that will do it, but if your an American End User dont worry about the legality, just continue to practice your rights as granted under the Copyright Act.

and if that is ever infringed, vote with your pocket book, the local library is free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>