Talk:DVD Decrypter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DVD Decrypter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Last version

On June 13, 2005, DVD Decrypter is back online. In his best interests, he has decided to start work on DVD Decrypter again, but he has lost all of his programmers. The DVD Decrypter site is back up at dvddecrypter.r8.org

For more information please read the following:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.79.218 (talk • contribs) 17 June 2005

Yes, I think the "If anyone knows C++/C+..." is a dead give-away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.175.97 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2005

There are links to this page for people who are told to use DVD Decrypter to copy DVDs to their computer hard drive for playing using only their computer. However, this site contains only legaleze and computer/Geek jargon and is of no use to ordinary people trying to play their DVDs.

Please either explain how to use DVD Decrypter or have a link to a site that does, using normal English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.48.73 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeware

is or was freeware?? --145.99.202.90 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was.

ImgBurn

Should there be any mention to ImgBurn?

As I'm sure you all know, DVD Decrypter was shut down due to legal reasons. Not wanting to waste all my hard work, I'd like to introduce you to ImgBurn! - (Say hello ImgBurn) - "Hello" :o) ImgBurn is an enhanced version of the 3.5.4.0 burn engine - and it will continue to get better and better as time goes on.

Like it says, it seems to be just the burning part.

Also, it would be nice if we gave alternatives to DVD Decrypter for making DVD video backups; preferably free Software developed in a "safe" country ;) Artemis3 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But does it actually use the DVD Decrypter engine or not. If not, adding a link would just be advertisement as it has nothing to do with the article. Remember this is an encyclopedia and not a list of links. Mushin ^talk 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but a tiny mention that ImgBurn has descendant code from DVD Decrypter might be ok for technical or informational reasons (keep it dry and clinical without any extra weasel words or marketing speak). I wouldn't call it a successor or anything nor even expand beyond that mention. It can be done if the editor is disciplined enough to be concise.--ThePenciler (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of download link on page

If it is illegal to distribute this program, then I recommend removing the download link. --James Stanley Barr 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it definitely illegal? By all means remove it. Mushin ^talk 12:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that while the download link has been removed, a link to google remains, which yields some sites with the download available. What's the difference if it linked to a site that contained it? Wikipedia contains no pirated material itself. All we're doing is shifting the linking to Google. Now you're going tell me Google breaks the law by linking directly to a site that contains it? Just seemed kind of picky, that's all. I have indeed noted PainMan's comments on the DMCA ruling, but it honestly makes me wonder the position of search engines in this -Piro RoadKill 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other sites that link to illegal content is not illegal in itself... If that was the case, any links to Google would be illegal. It would also potentially make every site on the Web illegal, because I'm sure nearly every site out there has at least one link to a site that links to a site (etc.) that is illegal. Furthermore, I really don't think it would even be illegal to link to the new mirror site, because Wikipedia itself is not distributing the program--it's the site being linked to that is breaking the law. But then again, that may just be a rumor spread by BitTorrent sites, and I'm no lawyer... TheSlyFox 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my distinct impression that the legality of downloading this software is a country to country matter. Can someone who actually knows please weigh in and do so on the article page itself. I have heard that macrovision took control of the software, have they been contested and was this settlement to cover all territories??

If referring someone to a sight that contains illegal materials is illegal, than Google should be given the electric chair!!--Tednor 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading and distributing the software is on a country by country basis. As stated in the article, US law makes the distribution of software such as DVD Decrypter illegal. Apparently, the UK has no law or ruling on the subject of DVD copying software, which is why the download mirror (which pops up at the top of the results in a Google search) is hosted in the UK. --76.113.187.251 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source that says it is illegal per Florida law to make a link to the download of this program? Florida law is all that matters in this case as that is where our servers are hosted. _{1 != 2} 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Macrovision now owns the copyright, so the "anti-circumvention" question is irrelevant. It's now the equivalent of downloading cracked Windows versions. Before copyright came into the picture, it was completely legal for anyone to download and use it. The EU & US laws deal with the distribution only. The end-user however has fair use.. Posting a link wouldn't be illegal. Don't be silly. (And even if it was, there's other ways of giving the same info without a hyperlink. Information is not a crime.) But why? Who goes to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, instead of any of the other wonderful sites out there (like Google) to find software? 71.155.238.10 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry gives the false impression that the No. Dist. of Cal. Dist. Ct. ruling is controlling U.S. law. It is citable but not binding precedent even on other District Courts in that Circuit.Other courts are free to rule otherwise unless their Circuit Courts of Appeals rule on the issue, which would be binding only on the courts of its circuit, or ultimately the Supreme Court,binding on all federal and state courts (though this is a matter of strictly federal jurisdiction) decides the matter itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Does it damage the quality of the original DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Chompiras (talk • contribs) 29 January 2006

Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) so we can see who left it! If the original DVD is not scratched or damaged, then the image produced will be identical to that of the disc itself. I suggest using a google search or forum for future questions, as wikipedia should not be used as a message board. Thanks. Mushin ^talk 14:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links

In order to bring this article into compliance with the law I removed certain links it contained. Someone with more knowledge or permissions (a sysop or whatever the title is) should remove all the links from the stored previous versions of the article.

I did not remove links from this (Discussion) page because I don't think its kosher to remove other people's commentaries. That should be done by someone with "authority". I've had comments I've made removed by, I shall put it kindly, an overzealous fellow "wikkipedian."

It was ruled in the 2600.com case (also known as the Eric Corley case after the 2600.com's owner) that the DMCA makes it illegal to link to sites that contain "illegal" software. Therefore, I removed all the links to sites which have DVD Decrypter available for download. Don't want the sharks coming after wikipedia. I added information about the Fair Use versus "copy protection" (which, imo, is more accurately called Rights Destruction Technology).

PainMan 08:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no law against linking to sites. I restored basic links to some download locations, which is perfectly fine. If your country considers usage of the program available in the link, then just don't use it. Mine doesn't, and people would like to know where to get it. Elfguy (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead pages?

What's the point of linking to the DVDDecrypter homepage if it just redirects to Google? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitan Obvio (talk • contribs) 3 March 2006

MD5SUM

Just for information, would someone care to put an md5sum or other hash of the last version on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.7 (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006

MD5SUM of SetupDVDDecrypter 3.5.4.0 (last release) is: 78d806097da8e8b8d595827cccddf6d9

--81.174.171.21 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For information purposes I want to confirm that the MD5 checksum for "SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.exe" is:
78D806097DA8E8B8D595827CCCDDF6D9
--Trounce (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takedown page?

Is there, or has there been any thought of, a page documenting the takedown of this program and similar programs, its effect on the availability of the software, the redistribution of the software by non-authors of it (as mentioned above), or its effect on the availability of copyrighted materials? In other words, did the software go away? Did the take down facilitate or prevent copyright infringement or plagiarism? Does the new law serve software artists, or corporate conglomerates, or both, or neither? Oneismany 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea....why not add it to the article Mushin ^talk 05:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrovision Case

How the hell did Macrovision buy out DVD Decrypter? Did LIGHTNING UK! acquiesce willingly? NeoThe1 05:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, yes. The alternative would have probably been an ugly and painful court appearance. Chris Cunningham 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources supplied they did NOT acquire the software but rather send cease and desist. The article cited [1] by Pyyny, Petteri is actually a bad interpretation of the quoted text from the author of the software [2]. Red nnnno (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article sucks

ok, in the year and a bit of using wikipedia, I don't think I've seen a worse-written article. The whole article (moreso the first section) needs to be totally rewritten, or you could find this article up for deletion. -203.45.31.154 05:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are plenty of worse articles. Feel free to add constructive commentary to their talk pages as well. Chris Cunningham 13:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:DVD decrypter screenshot.png

File:DVD decrypter screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter

Lightning UK didn't tell anyone who wrote the letter, it was when the site got the letter that everyone found out it was macrovision. 90.199.169.219 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, who else would it be? lol 71.155.238.10 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version history

I would be interested to know more about earlier versions (pre 3.5.4.0), what features were added and when, and about compatibility with operating systems. Can anyone provide these details? 96.241.7.138 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.dvddecrypter.org.uk donwload link broken

In the links section of the article, the www.dvddecrypter.org.uk "undofficial" mirror site is mentioned.

However, it should be mentioned that the only download link present in that page is broken. It is ok to include the link in the article for historical knowledge, but it should be said that the link is completely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.32.101.118 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old news, it's been broken since NTL merged with Virgin (and probably messed up half their hosting accounts in the process). The other links are still working though.

"While it was supported..."

A sentence in the lead paragraph seems dubious to me. "While it was still supported, it could be used to make a copy of any DVD protected with Content Scrambling System (CSS)." The fact that the software is no longer supported did not magically make existing copies of the software, out in the wild, suddenly stop doing exactly what it was already capable of doing. Certainly there are new protection mechanisms (over and above CSS), which had not been envisioned by the time development of DVD Decrypter had ceased. DVDs using such additional mechanisms might be able to defeat DVD Decrypter's techniques. But any DVD which the software was capable of duplicating prior to its takedown would certainly still be susceptible to the software after its takedown.142.177.67.210 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DVD Decrypter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830092008/http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Decrypter---Gone-Forever.html to http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Decrypter---Gone-Forever.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]