I really am curious - why do some dvd roms have 'riplock' that prevents full speed dvd ripping?

[episodic]

subject says all

 

[KLin]

to make ripping a dvd more work that it's worth would be my guess.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: KLin
to make ripping a dvd more work that it's worth would be my guess.

Why would they do that? Their bottom line is the most important thing to their company, or so I'd hope.

 

[AsianriceX]

It's probably to appease the MPAA.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Amazing what the very first result in Google can find for you.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Amazing what the very first result in Google can find for you.

Amazing that I got the same link that did not answer my question . ..

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Amazing what the very first result in Google can find for you.

Amazing that I got the same link that did not answer my question . ..

sorry we aren't used to dealing with those that rode a 'smaller' bus to school.

the riplock keeps the player more quiet during playback, however; whether that's necessary is doubtful. I am guessing riplock is to prevent dvd burners copying them.

 

[IEC]

Interesting, did not know about this...

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Amazing what the very first result in Google can find for you.

Amazing that I got the same link that did not answer my question . ..

sorry we aren't used to dealing with those that rode a 'smaller' bus to school.

the riplock keeps the player more quiet during playback, however; whether that's necessary is doubtful. I am guessing riplock is to prevent dvd burners copying them.

I was looking for someone that knew of an actual article/discussion about this with some technical in depth information, and not simply conjecture as offered above, especially when several well regarded drives do not have it at all, and still are quiet.

The smaller school bus comment was not necessary.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
Interesting, did not know about this...

Same here ariafrost 😱

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Amazing what the very first result in Google can find for you.

Amazing that I got the same link that did not answer my question . ..

sorry we aren't used to dealing with those that rode a 'smaller' bus to school.

the riplock keeps the player more quiet during playback, however; whether that's necessary is doubtful. I am guessing riplock is to prevent dvd burners copying them.

I was looking for someone that knew of an actual article/discussion about this with some technical in depth information, and not simply conjecture as offered above, especially when several well regarded drives do not have it at all, and still are quiet.

The smaller school bus comment was not necessary.

Necessary, no. More fun? Yes 😛:thumbsup::beer:


😉

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: episodic

I was looking for someone that knew of an actual article/discussion about this with some technical in depth information, and not simply conjecture as offered above, especially when several well regarded drives do not have it at all, and still are quiet.

The smaller school bus comment was not necessary.

well regarded usually equal more money...

however by my post I would say it's to mess with burners copying movies...

hence my short bus comment and why I am now re-responding to this.

most everything applied to media electronically through software is anti-copy devices.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Strange, that thread and that particular explanation looked far less like conjecture than anything that was posted here. Maybe that's just me.

I figured it was a strong enough hint to look around before asking. Guess not.

Riplock only applies to DVDROM. For obvious reasons, the MPAA would like you to not be able to rip DVDs 10 per hour. It has always been a goal to get hardware makers to help out with that. There are also the aforementioned valid goals of quiet movie watching and better extractions.

It's unlikely there will ever be a satisfactory "official" explanation for it, since nobody will believe the hardware makers were entirely focused on providing a better viewing experience through a hardware lock that can't be disabled by the user at anytime when NOT viewing the movie, and they can't very well say they kowtowed to the MPAA.

Up to the time of reading this thread, I'd never heard of riplock. I'm perfectly satisfied that I know what it is and why it's probably there. Knowing doesn't make it any easier or harder to get it removed of course, which is all that matters.

 

[EyeMWing]

Huhwhat? You mean to say that not everyone uses OMGWTFBBQHACKED firmware on their drives?

 

[dethman]

figure it out your own damn self if you're gonna be such a prick about it.

 

[episodic]

Don't see how I'm being a prick. I simply found out about it for the first time reading another article elsewhere not too long ago. Likewise I can probably figure out 'why' it is there. I was curious as to why some companies don't have it vs. those that do. I was curious if there were technical reasons - or other reasons - and if they had been documented anywhere.