You can RIP out the DRM, legally.


blink3times wrote on 2/22/2007, 7:40 PM
Yes! I use anydvd in combination with dvdShrink... get rid of all the garbage... even the menu if you wish. I enjoy it when you put the disk in and the movie starts right away.... but only the menu and garbage is removed. The chapter points stay.

You pay good money to watch a movie... not a whole pile of plugs and adds.
rstein wrote on 2/22/2007, 8:34 PM
Laurence, I'm sympathetic to your POV, but in my opinion, AnyDVD is technically illegal to possess in the U.S. because of DMCA's proscription of any decrypting tools, at least for home users (as Spot pointed out, last year's amendment gave libraries fair use and thus an exemption from the no-decryption statute).

However, I doubt the FBI will be knocking on your door anytime soon. You did delete the FBI warning, right? That's what attracts 'em. :-)

MH_Stevens wrote on 2/22/2007, 11:12 PM
An "aside" to those disreputal ones of you who have advocated buying programs like ANYDVD. Did you know they are all a rip? They are just repackaged public domaine freeware.
MH_Stevens wrote on 2/22/2007, 11:13 PM
Shit! I was post #99. Just missed being number 100.
murk wrote on 2/22/2007, 11:27 PM
It is the right of anyone that purchases media, to be able to back that media up for personal use. This has always been the law, even when photo copiers came out. Lawmakers need to target the distributers of pirated content, not the tool makers.
blink3times wrote on 2/23/2007, 4:23 AM
"An "aside" to those disreputal ones of you who have advocated buying programs like ANYDVD. Did you know they are all a rip? They are just repackaged public domaine freeware."


I get a real kick out of these righteous preachers!

Like you have never recorded a song from the radio, or maybe a movie from the tv... etc If you have lived in this world long enough then the chances are great that you have broken copyright laws in some fashion at LEAST once.... and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Yes... I know your reasons for recording that movie were honest ones right?

In a post above, some one actually wrote that I'm immoral because I am a FIRM believer in the ability use these programs to run off a second copy for the car... but THEIR reason for breaking the law (running off a second copy because his kids handle the disks a little too roughly) is the correct and righteous reason.

Amazing... Absolutely amazing! I have no words for these kinds of thought patterns!

You are certainly entitled to you opinion, but please, don't make yourself out to be Snow White in the process!
Jonathan Neal wrote on 2/23/2007, 4:48 AM
Amazing... Absolutely amazing! I have no words for these kinds of thought patterns!

According to my calculations, you had about 174 words. :)

Before you think I'm going up against on this, I actually wanted to let you know that I'm on your side. In all honesty, I'm glad to see the pirates doing what they do. We need the pirates right now. The entire industry is moving to where the pirates go. Think about this: what was MP3? An illegal hack of a compression format, distributed by college students. What was Napster? It was found to be an illegal distribution method, I remember that much. Now, because of MP3s and because of Napster we have iPods and iTunes and YouTube, Windows Media Center and usb pocket mp3 players, and even the Zune. Those pirates put new devices in the consumers hands, and helped bring the technology forward. If the mp3 hadn't done it, or if Napster hadn't done it, well then some other pirate would have done it. So even if these Slysoft guys are nothing but dirty pirates in some people's minds, and all of us who use their software are nothing but pirate supporters, well, at least we are helping put the power back in the hands of the consumer, and thusly forcing the industry to innovate.

With that said, yin will meet yang and the pirates will lose the attention of the masses when the masses stop needing them. Oh, and I still think this software is legal. Oh, and I think it's cool we're at 100+ posts. Woot.
blink3times wrote on 2/23/2007, 5:07 AM
I agree... and the world keeps turning... cops would be out of a job if it wasn't for criminals... cold water would not be cold if the hot wasn't there to compare to.... what would GOOD be without BAD... yadda , yadda.
Pirates DO show us the way ... it's a valid point you have that should not be lost.
Chienworks wrote on 2/23/2007, 5:16 AM
How is it legal (at least in the USA) if it violates DCMA? Is that purely wishful thinking or do you have anything substantial to back up your opinion?

Or are you saying it's legal elsewhere?
Ecquillii wrote on 2/23/2007, 5:19 AM
I guess in our conversation about copyright we are expressing our deep yearnings. As artists and content-providers we want to be able to participate in the capitalist monetary system we find ourselves in and still make a living. As content-users we want to access the content itself and not be made into criminals for fairly using it.

We don’t make laws to make criminals, we make laws to facilitate the relational interactions between people. A just law would not make criminals out of people who are doing something innocuous. Copyright law is less than three hundred years old. Most of the world’s art was created without it. It is not in itself necessary to the unfolding of the creative human spirit.

If we had a different monetary or resource-sharing institution, these issues would be different. My deep yearning is for a world where all are included and have a daily portion of what they need to live. My deep yearning is for a world where all are invited to live creatively fulfilled lives. Copyright, as it is currently playing out in laws and international trade agreements, has an exclusive and controlling aspect that is antithetical to a vision of a just and democratic world.

Tim Robertson

Desktop:ASUS M32CD

Version of Vegas: VEGAS Pro Version 20.0 (Build 370)
Windows Version: Windows 10 Home (x64) Version 21H2 (build 19044.2846)
Cameras: Canon T2i (MOV), Sony HDR-CX405 (MP4), Lumia 950XL, Samsung A8, Panasonic HC-V785 (MP4)
Delivery Destination: YouTube, USB Drive, DVD/BD

Processor: 3.40 gigahertz Intel Core i7-6700
RAM: 16 Gigabytes
Graphics Card 1: AMD Radeon R9 370; Driver Version: 15.200.1065.0
Graphics Card 2: Intel HD Graphics 530; Driver Version:
GPU acceleration of video processing: Optimal - AMD Radeon R9 370
Enable Hardware Decoding for supported formats: 'Enable legacy AVC' is off; 'Enable legacy HEVC' is on
Hardware Decoder to Use: Auto (Off)

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/23/2007, 6:39 AM
Wow Jonathan,
If that's the way the "new generation" thinks, we're exceptionally messed up. While justification of piracy is up for debate, the history of compression/distribution formats is not.

Napster had nothing to do with the players you reference, these small players were in planning and existence before Napster and whatever else. Napster gained legs in 2000. RCA had already released two small players with 128MB of storage at that point, and others had products as well.

The MP3 was *not* invented/created by college students hacking into compressed formats. MP3 was patented by Fraunhofer in 1989. Long before it was ever used or heard of in the public domain. Further, he began development of the MP3 (mpeg 1/Layer 3) as early as 1977. Subpop, a Seattle group of which I was a member, was the first distributor of music in the MP3 format, and it was completely legal. Bruce Pavitt and another guy whose name I can't remember (was British, I believe) started the grunge wave with online, paid music for the magazine SubPop. No college hack, just two very enterprising young men.

SoundForge could encode to MP3 long before MP3 was used as an online distribution form.

When you speak highly of pirates, and then use the word "we" in the same sentence, coupling yourself with the pirates, it sickens me to think that you're proud of stealing from others. "Pride in theft"...must be a concept of the new generation. It's not revolutionary, not socially beneficial, and not being the hippie of the new generation. It's stealing in the way you advocate it. While you're citing history...MP3 might be the vehicle that helped pirates become what they are, but theft has been, and always will be, theft. Only the degree of severity changes.

Forcing the industry to "innovate?" Hardly. You're forcing the industry to retaliate.
No one really cares that it's illegal to copy a DVD for your own personal archive or rip a CD to play on your iPod. No one cares. No one has been prosecuted for this. When you copy a record and hand it off to a buddy, who then does the same...that's where it begins. It ends with the guy making music mixes based on the works of others and selling those compilations on the street corners making a buck off the works of others. Sometimes they directly copy works right down to the graphics and sell them as the real deal.

Yet someone else posted that it's not appropriate to think that humans will steal whenever possible? Most will. Not everyone, but a greater percentage of those that won't. Integrity is a lost concept.
blink3times wrote on 2/23/2007, 7:29 AM
"Yet someone else posted that it's not appropriate to think that humans will steal whenever possible? Most will. Not everyone, but a greater percentage of those that won't. Integrity is a lost concept."

That was me, and I still firmly believe in what I said. Humans deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you want to talk Law... one of the most basic laws is is simply 'Innocent until proven guilty'. If we all believe as you suggest, then this means that the entire court system is a lie.

I think the worst that you can say here is that we ALL have a different way of rationalizing our rights and wrongs, and sometimes in the process we concentrate too much on ourselves and not enough on how our actions affect others. But most people (I won't say all) take a different tune when they CLEARLY see the damage that their actions have enflicted on others.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/23/2007, 8:53 AM
Blink, I wish/hope that your view was/is true. Too many circumstances in my experience have shown otherwise. Like I said, there was a time I believed differently, until someone I thought was a friend stole not only from my business, but me personally, hurting several others in the process. He's never apologized for his actions, but instead attempted to create a videotape that he could use to put the onus on others, and tried to create a situation to cause attentions on him to be deflected to others. On top of all that, we later learned he'd stolen copyrighted media from us, and used it in his training videos.
All he needed to do was fix the situation with an apology and 10.00 worth of expense to transfer domains that he'd promised to transfer. Now they're porn sites.
I realize that's just one guy, but that's also just one situation out of a few in my time.

I see it as fairly black and white with few greys.
Copying a DVD, even if it rips out the encryption, for purposes of personal archiving (such as the Scooby Doo cartoons a parent wants to save off) is perfectly OK by me. It's illegal, but I see it as the same as going 60 in a 55 zone.
Copying a DVD and giving copies to buddies, that's another story. Depending on the numbers given away, maybe a small fine is due, were I the judge, but more likely a "don't do this again, OK?" would suffice.
Copying a DVD and selling it or using parts of it in your own video creation is a more severe story. Maybe a reasonable fine is due, were I the judge.
Copying a DVD, copying the graphics, selling it as being identical or in place of the original...that deserves jail time, IMO.
Copying a DVD, putting it on the web for everyone to access for free...that deserves a capital penalty. :-)

No longer do I have faith in the "general" human integrity. I wish I did, it would allow me to consider locking doors less and allow me to trust people as I once did...
But like the old saying goes...burned once, shame on me...etc.
that, plus the proliferation of Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa, Limewire, etc tip the evidence more to my side than yours. As does this thread.
Jonathan Neal wrote on 2/23/2007, 10:11 AM
Spot, I don't really stand by what I said, but I wanted to get people thinking .... beyond yourself, myself, and blink3times. *shrug* At the very least, that's not what my generation thinks of it. I'm not really in touch with my generation to begin with. I still watch M.A.S.H and I don't even own my own DVD player.

*whispers* I think this thread is ... done ... */whispers*

rustier wrote on 2/23/2007, 10:19 AM
I remember when guys would meticulously clean and treat their LP records to preserve them, and had exotic needles and weights to perfectly balance the arms to prevent wear and tear. They would transfer these records to tape so they could listen to the music in their car. No one seemed to mind.

I remember when vcr's came out, nobody charged them a monthly fee, and a person could record a movie to watch any time they wanted, and even loan it out, and no one seemed to mind.

Now when I want to buy a movie of music cd - I find that I am agreeing to a legal binding contract, without legal counsel. Of course I suppose I could call my attorney and for a fee he could tell me if I should buy the product - if I could read the fine print. I guess I better buy a microscope.

Now when I sign up for TV, I find I must sign up for at least a year - a contract with penalties. I guess I better call my attorney again.

Now when I sign up for a cell phone, they seem to think I must sign a contract for two years - a legal contract with penalties. I just wanted a phone. Better call my attorney.

Seems to me artists were at risk the whole time. Taking a product you purchased and turning around and making money off it - for personal gain shouldn't happen, but it does. No one likes to be robbed. What's changed? The media. People are the same. So is the risk the price of doing that type of business? Are the people that engauge in this type of business the poor, the downtrodden, the abused? Are they in it for the money or are they in it for the artistic expression? Should they be flattered that people who may not be able to afford their product find alternative methods to get what that artist produced? (This is not an attempt to justify theft). I am not so sure morality has changed so much in the world, just the eyes of those to whom it matters.

Seems like the attorney's are making out the best in all these deals, and consumers suffer. . . and some of the artist still get ripped off, but hopefull manage to live well anyway off their efforts.
nolonemo wrote on 2/23/2007, 10:43 AM
Speaking of MP3s, from todays NY Times:

"Microsoft was ordered by a federal jury yesterday to pay $1.52 billion in a patent dispute over the MP3 format, the technology at the heart of the digital music boom. . . . . The ruling, in Federal District Court in San Diego, was a victory for Alcatel-Lucent, the big networking equipment company. Its forebears include Bell Laboratories, which was involved in the development of MP3 almost two decades ago. . . . Microsoft and others have licensed MP3 — not from Alcatel-Lucent, but from a consortium led by the Fraunhofer Institute, a large German research organization that was involved, along with the French electronics company Thomson and Bell Labs, in the format’s development. The current case turns on two patents that Alcatel claims were developed by Bell Labs before it joined with Fraunhofer to develop MP3."

Full article at
rstein wrote on 2/23/2007, 10:54 AM

The difference between the 60s and 70s, when many of us made reel-to-reel copies of our vinyl albums as you described, was that at that time, there wasn't even a technical violation of copyright law. That changed in 1972, when sound recordings were added to the Copyright Act. Nonetheless, the practice of copying vinyl to tape (later, audiocassettes) for personal, archival use probably fell within fair use.

The other thing that's changed, which makes your argument that it's the lawyers' fault that we're where we are today, is digital storage. Before, you needed the original source to make one generation of copy; copies of copies had severe degradation. Digital changed all of that, allowing perfect copies with no generational losses. And, the emergence of high-bandwidth Internet connectivity made conveying that digital form across the world a trivial task.

The bottom line is people should not steal copyrighted content, both from a legal and moral perspective. On the other hand, placing barriers that will impede fair use (private, archival copying) should not be sanctioned by the law, either, IMO. Finding the balance is why we're all discussing this; that equilibrium just hasn't been found yet.


Laurence wrote on 2/23/2007, 12:21 PM
When I was a kid, a friend would lend me an album, and if it was good, next thing you know I was a fan and bought the new albums from the same artist when they came out. If you think about it, pretty much any music you listen to that isn't on the radio, you get exposed to from somebody sharing it with you. Maybe they lend you the album and after a while you give it back. A few years ago they might run off a cassette. Now they might post it on Youtube. The point is, that is how we have been discovering new music since recorded music began. About a year ago, a friend gave me a copy of a Tommy Emanuel DVD. Since then I've become a huge fan and have bought several albums. The crazy thing is, that I never would have bought or even been aware of his music if it wasn't for the "pirate" copy. I've made fans of several other people with copies of this same DVD. The point is, making illegal copies and selling them on a large scale hurts the artist. On a small scale, individuals turning each other on to artists they like however helps the artist and increases his fan base. If I was to sell copies of pirated discs on eBay, that would hurt the artists. When I tell a friend: 'hey you need to check this out" and give him a copy of a disc I really like, I feel like I am a helping the artist out. I don't know how many times I have gone to a friends house and seen complete collections of store bought CDs from artists where I was the first one to expose the guy to this music. That's the part that the media companies seem to be missing entirely.
vicmilt wrote on 2/25/2007, 12:28 PM
OK Jonathan ...

since you're never too old to learn something new, I sit at your feet for advice - it IS after all, a new age - you have totally denigrated the "old school thinking", and the protection that I wish for.
I am ready to learn.

Case in point:
I am currently in the final stages of completion of a companion video to my "Light It Right" how to. A LOT of people have written to thank me for creating it - so I sort of got sucked in.

It's called "Director/Cameraman - how to create award winning movies" and I hope to premiere it at NAB. Nearly two hours of dense information, gleaned from a successful career nearly 40 years in length.

I have spent five solid months on shooting and production and about $20,000 out of pocket for crew and talent to follow me around and then help edit, while I have actually been at work on "real" jobs. I have created commentary - as it comes to mind in real situations, right there at "the scene of the crime" - on set.

In addition, I have researched my personal archives to demonstrate other techniques in interviewing, shooting and lighting - techniques I used throughout my career and have included the same detailed information on them.
(BTW - I realized this morning, as a result of THIS discussion, that I have to pull a bunch of really great stuff detailing a couple of major national commercials, since the copyright and SAG implications are so profound - what a bitch!)
This movie is an "original" - I've never seen anything like it from anyone else - No Theory - All detailed practice - functionally all from proven award winning work.

At all times in the creation of this movie, I've had the members of THIS community (the guys and gals of the Vegas Forum) in mind .
I love you guys - for real, and I'm getting old(er). No sponsors, so no Bull.

Certainly, I have contriubuted any number of lessons and tips right here on the forum for free, mostly written in great detail. So money is not my MAIN motivation. Nevertheless, when you figure in a minumum mark-up to distrubutors and stores of at least 100%, I've got to generate a minumum of $40,000 in sales simply to break even on my original "out-of-pocket", plus - well - what is MY time worth - and even more to the point - what is the knowledge that I'm passing on worth? This isn't JUST entertainment - (although I am my usual efforvescent self) - well, how much does a semester of collge cost? How many teachers with my credentials are teaching in that college? And taking you out on set with them on real jobs?

I think that every school kid in the world that wants to get started in video should see this movie - but that's me. I also think a LOT of YOU will love this movie- I packed it with info.

So - Jonathan - how would YOU distribute this? How would you guarantee a return on my investment - of time - of cash - of knowledge? How would you protect my investment long enough to simply break even? How would you feel, knowing all this, to see my work up on YouTube for free? Or knowing that someone (maybe even here on this site) was ripping it off and passing it around?

What is the new paradigm that will encourage me to make the last two movies of this series?

You disparage copyright. You encourage software designed to circumvent any protection I can buy. You sneer at the existing system and the people tyring to protect it.

So what do you suggest?

Most sincerely,
Victor Milt
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/25/2007, 1:24 PM
Wow. Excellent post, Victor.
You couldn't have summed it up better.

I'm sure the next argument will be "But you're not Hollywood."
The distinction between one and the other fails me.

BTW, this is barely worth mentioning but...
We had a young man apply for employment with us. I was quite excited about hiring the kid; his chops are cutting edge, his resume was strong in education, but weak in experience. I'd decided that we'd give him a second interview.
Then in perusing his website this week, I found where he'd taken several copyrighted works and put them on ""
I gave him the opportunity to explain why he'd done so, and his response was that "copyrights are just a way of making more money" and he doesn't believe in that. Apparently the works are paid for by sponsors or initial release, in his mind.

Poor kid, probably never willrealize why he won't get a job with our media content/software development company.
blink3times wrote on 2/25/2007, 1:24 PM
You're taking things too far to the other extreme. I don't think ANYBODY that has responded in this thread relishes, backs, or aproves of theft, or even the thought of it.

Will it happen? Yes it most certainly will... and I hope you have that worked into the price tag of your product just like EVERY other vendor does... Whether you're talking about video vending or convenience store vending.

And I don't think anybody here is scoffing at proper disk/work protection either. You have the right to protect your work to the best of your ability, as well as the right to EXPECT proper payment.

But I think what it comes down to is that disk protection DOES NOT work. There will ALWAYS be some kind of program out there to circumvent the protection and the artist will always get ripped of to a certain extent.

You ask "what do you suggest?"

Well first, you have to admit that no matter what you do, you will not complately erase the problem... but you can minimize it by bending a little. Copyright protection fails for the same reason that prohibtion did... too much power in one side's hands and not enough in the other... that coupled with the fact that alcohol was something that many people needed instead of wanted.... the whole movement went underground as a result. It was cleaned up by taking the power away from the underground by legalizing it and applying some rules that most everyone could accept.

There is no reason this copyright issue can't be fixed up by handling it the same way. I use products like anydvd because I think it STINKS that I am forced to buy the same piece of work at the same price if I simply want a copy for my car. I also have a house and a cottage. I like my music, and I like my movies. I'm either forced to by 3 of everything or I'm forced to carry a suitcase of cd's/dvd's around with me... both situations are nothing short of silly!

But... if a producer ever said to me... "we'll give you the first copy at full price and the second and third for $5 each". Well... that would certainly remove my need or want for products like Anydvd... and the producer would receive $10 that they weren't receiving before.

The sad thing is that this sort or idea would never be applied.... because the industry is insisting, (and will continue to insist out of pure greed) that people like me pay the full price 3 times over. Well... okay... then I will continue to use products like Anydvd.
winrockpost wrote on 2/25/2007, 3:31 PM
............I think it STINKS that I am forced to buy the same piece of work at the same price if I simply want a copy for my car. I also have a house and a cottage......

I dont know ,, maybe I'm old or dumb or both,, but if it was my stuff you wanted for all three places you either carry the cd/dvd or buy three copies. they aint that heavy to carry around ya know.

CClub wrote on 2/25/2007, 3:35 PM
Not sure if you were just asking rhetorically to prove a point, but I've thought of your "Light It Right" project in this whole discussion. It's on my list to purchase before my next big project, but the price (understandable given what you put into it) was beyond my price range for a DVD. I don't think anyone on this forum (with any dignity) would contemplate ripping a copy due to the respect everyone has for you; I'd rather go without. I've tried to think of ways that could move a project like that forward beyond the range of people you'll catch at that price.

I do think there are new ways to look at distribution. The "old ways" will clearly bring about pirated copies. If you need to make $40K to break even, and you sold them at $100/ea, you'd need to sell 400. Offer people things VERY special at that price that they won't get anyway else. Then, what if you use the "new ways" to sell it online for download for $10 and spread it much farther around for the next level of videographers who won't buy it at $100. Take away some of what you're offering at the $100 price, along with lower bitrate, etc. At 1 Gig or so, I'd do it, and not have to worry about viruses, breaking protections, ethics, etc. You're only catching the top level of videographers at your price/distribution system. And also give the buyer something they won't get if they get a pirated copy on their own. Then, I'd do something like offer a very small version (320 x 240) distributed around the "new way" online (bitTorrent, Morpheus, etc.), with several added "intermissions and an intro", where you explain what you are about doing, what it took, and a link to PayPal/credit card a "donation" of $3-4 out of professional respect for those who benefited from your project. You might catch another 3000 people that way. Maybe those aren't the specifics that would work, but just a few ideas. There is no way to guarantee you'd make your money back; it may lose incredibly, but on the other hand, what if that method earned you much more than your money back?

You know, it sounds stupid, actually, Vic, as I see it in black and white, but it's actually the method that I'll be using for my next film. James
rstein wrote on 2/25/2007, 3:38 PM

Removing the national commercial content from your production is the ironclad way to avoid any trouble. But using a copyrighted work for illustrative/comparative/educational purposes is probably exempted under fair use, if it doesn't affect the commercial value of the holder, it doesn't use the substantial amounts of the copyrighted work and a couple of other factors.

Again, this is very general, but it cuts to the core of whether you are taking money out of the copyright holder's hand (by using the work as your own for profit OR reducing the value of the material to the holder by using the work in a disparaging way).

So if one is doing a "how to make a commercial" video, using XYZ's television commercial to explain the how the lighting gave the advert more oomph, that probably would not run afoul of copyright law. Not that it would immunize the videomaker from being sued anyway, but she'd have a pretty good defense.

DISCLAIMER: This is posted as informational, and definitely not intended to be legal advice! Consult with an attorney. Dry recitation of theoretical law issues has been known to cause constipation, diarrhea, and rash in a small number of persons. If you have chest pain, tingling in your extremities, or body parts start falling off, see your doctor immediately.