Talk:DVD ripper

message: This article mayhi smell like an ad, but there is a lot useful infomation, I've used this software and it is really something except the conversion speed a little slow.  edit it to improve the article to be a good one.
Bryantsinger 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an ad, for sure. "Ease of use" and so forth doesn't provide a neutral point of view.  I'll try to fix some stuff.  Useight 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad 

message: I'm not sure avs video converter actually rips dvds? (Celicaman (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVS video converter - does actually rip dvds? 

message: This article is little more than a list and while it has some useful information it could be better presented (and hopefully expanded upon) in a table/comparison form where information about the individual features of each piece of software could be included. 213.40.104.233 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  Particularly useful would be a table showing which programs were able to cope with various copy prevention schemes.  --AC (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Would a comparison be better ?

message: Several of these apps aren't listed as being for any particlar OS. This means more work for the user who has to check that they are / aren't for their particular platform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.210.240 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How about splitting by OS

message: Spammer(s) have been adding links to a commercial product to this article. Several editors have found links to pages in the daniusofts.com domain and removed them. I removed the latest one and added spam warnings to the spammers talk pages.Teh dave (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniusoft spam

message: I cannot see this program in the listing. It's seemingly got a better track record as of late, compared to both RipIt and MacTheRipper. Someone's got the full story for this (Mac OS X) program?--Paracel63 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac DVDRipper Pro?

message: As there is an article for Fortium, but not DVD Sequr, I will have to revert this column header until the article for DVD Sequr is written. Further, the claimed change of DVDFab to supporting Forium is accompanied by a reference, within which I cannot find any listing of 'Fortium', 'Patronius', 'Sequr', 'Extended Copy Protection', 'XCP', 'Planet', or even 'First 4 Internet', thus it seems that this claim is not substantiated by the given reference, so rather than adding the template:, I will instead revert this change as well, unless the cited reference is updated to contain {cite web | url = <url> | title = <title> | quote = <Insert quoted text which verifies DVDFab's support for Fortium here>}. Since the reasoning for the claim that RipIt cannot support any ARccOS Protection is based on only one case, I will switch this to 'Partial', and add a reference to support my claim.--Lent1999 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I should probably clarify the first sentence of my previous statement. The Fortium Technologies article claims that Fortium is the company that invented the DRM technology called DVD Sequr. If the tech is notable, then the company should also be notable (perhaps both should only ever be mentioned in the same article as Rovi Corporation mentions RipGuard & Analog copy protection). Whether this one tech, DVD Sequr, is the only tech to come out of Fortium, or not, either way, then Fortium should be the umbrella term for this, or any and all DRM techs to come out of Fortium, as is the case with Macrovision. However if DVD Sequr should get it's own article, then it may become seperate, as is the case with ARccOS. I should also point out that since most if not all of the listed rippers do not define if they support either RipGuard or ACP or both, then this column probably should not be split into two.--Lent1999 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortium/DVD Sequr column 

message: I see that many of the links in the footnotes for this article specify "https" instead of what should probably be "http".  In my version of Firefox, when I follow those links, I get the sensible warning that "This Connection is Untrusted ...".  Is there any good reason to use "https" instead of "http"?  If not, I'll be happy to fix the links to use "http" instead.
W.F.Galway (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "https" links in article rather than "http" links 

message: Any chance handbrake could be added to this list? It seems absent... Rogerdpack (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  handprake is not a real dvd ripper. you cant copy the content of a dvd to your hdd. you just can transcode it to a videofile.
just a quote from the projects faq-page: "First off, you should know that HandBrake is not a DVD ripper." or "If you are encoding a disc, rip it to Hard Disk first with 3rd party software." from Handbrake FAQ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.209.67 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  DVD Shrink and CloneDVD aren't rippers either, and you have them on the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  handbrake 

message: Makemkv would make a good addition, perhaps? Rogerdpack (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  makemkv 

message: Reference 43 ( http://thelittleappfactory.com/ripit/notes/ ) is a 404....  Fedorant (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RipIt 

message: The article claims that these programs make lossless backups but many of the listed programs transcode the data and do not perform a raw backup of the data. 72.235.201.4 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Any chance DVDsmith could be added to this list? Wammes Waggel (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVDsmith 

message: I just corrected two references that were mangled by three separate problems. First, the anon editor adding the references misunderstood the concept of the "name" attribute in the <ref> element. Instead of adding a useful nickname, s/he merely copied the entire text referenced, wiki markup and all, into the name. Amazingly, this itself didn't cause the reference to blow up, at least in my browser. But it did give heart-attacks to two separate automated markup cleanup efforts(,
), each of which mangled the references in their own way. While the mangling was directly the fault of the automated attempts, it arose from an abuse of the ref-name attribute that probably shouldn't have worked anyway. (And we really need these automated patrols to address the problems of several million articles.)
The lesson here: In <ref name="NAME">, NAME should be something simple yet unique to the article. It defeats the reuse purpose if it's inscrutable, even ignoring the mayhem potential of including markup inside a wiki/HTML attribute. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangling references