Talk:Ripping

message: in the text (e.g. a Pentium 4 will be faster than a Celeron or and AMD Sempron with the same clock speed) is utterly not true. P4 1.8Ghz is much much slower than a Sempron 1.8Ghz (Sempron 3100+). I have the latter and I can clearly notice the difference.
:I think there's also an inaccuracy in the statement that "a Pentium running at 120MHz will do that twice as fast as a similar 60MHz chip."  Maybe that section can be replaced with this: "the encoding device (in most cases a PC) will encode the digital input to a compressed format. This is a purely CPU-related task, so factors such as the CPU's clock speed, architecture, and design will limit encoding speed." I'll change it to this if nobody objects.  --Ash211 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Ash211 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.8G Pentium 4 is faster than 1.8G Sempron??? 

message: The article mentions some rippers, but winDAC (Windows Digital Audio Copy) has been around for quite some time.  Around 97/98-ish the norm where I was from was to use winDAC to rip and Xing to encode.  In so far as bit rates, it was never an issue.  It's still one of the faster rippers, but then, I guess I'm not a great judge of that because I've only used three or four others.
(I recall windac being available in 95, as at the time i first came across it i was employed by a particular company)82.152.235.77 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old rippers 

message: This edit brings up the usage of ripping as in plagiarizing someone else's work.  Perhaps a disambiguation page should be made at Ripping (disambiguation) that includes a link to both the Ripping page and plagiarism too.  I'm looking at a page similar to plagiarism (disambiguation).  What do you guys think about directing this usage of ripping over to the plagiarism article? --Ash211 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out that the page at Rip is more what I'm looking for, but with an entry to Plagiarism.  My bad.  --Ash211 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Much as it's interesting to know the legal status of ripping in the US and France, are there any sources available that detail the legal status in various other countries around the world?
zoney  ♣ talk 11:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status 

message: Does this section on plagiarism even need to be here?  It's not NPOV, and I can't even figure out what encyclopedic content it's trying to disseminate.  --TreyHarris 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's opinionated, uncited, and if it is a legit use of the word "ripping" (to be verified with a primary source), then it deserves the usual disambig treatment like rip saw gets, not an irrelevant section in this article. --Ds13 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section 

message: === Ripping comes from Ripping Off?? ===
To me there's no immediate connection between ripping and ripping someone off. Only in the sense of "I'm ripping x off the DVD", but not in the sense of "I'm ripping off Sony or whoever". Nczempin 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think there's a strong connection there either.  Though the MIAA and MPAA might have you believe otherwise. As this link points out, waaaay back in the day, we used to rip the music tracks out of binaries (ROM or disk images from old 8 bit computers).  Legalities aside, the action was to rip it out of its original context, as someone rips a page out of a newspaper. --Ds13 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just want to agree that the term originated with Raster Imagine Processing. I've been saying this for years! 68.45.3.28 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: +1 for Raster Imagine Processing, that is my recollection also, we just need a reference. Chalky (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. That the term carried with it the parallel meaning of "ripping something/something off" is just one of those coincidences of terminology that computing is rife with. It's probably one of the factors that ensures that a word will come into wide usage. But I think the article should at least mention somewhere that the term "RIP" can also refer to Raster Image Processing, or to Raster Image Processor. rowley (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of "RIP"

message: To me there's no immediate connection between ripping and ripping someone off. Only in the sense of "I'm ripping x off the DVD", but not in the sense of "I'm ripping off Sony or whoever". Nczempin 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think there's a strong connection there either.  Though the MIAA and MPAA might have you believe otherwise. As this link points out, waaaay back in the day, we used to rip the music tracks out of binaries (ROM or disk images from old 8 bit computers).  Legalities aside, the action was to rip it out of its original context, as someone rips a page out of a newspaper. --Ds13 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripping comes from Ripping Off?? 

message: I have my doubts about the origin promoted by the page linked above.  From what I've observed, the term seemed to have carried over from graphics, where decades ago RIP was originally (and still is) an acronym for Raster Image Processor.  A RIP in that context was a piece of software or a device that could read a graphic file that was in some vector-based markup language (such as a PostScript file or a CAD drawing formatted for a pen plotter) and convert it from a mathematical description of lines into dots (that is, into a bitmap representation) so that it could be output on a dumb printer (as most dot matrix and inkjet printers were).  
The ripping process would often take several minutes or even hours for a single file.  The term was almost universally known and used by nearly everyone associated with the computer image printing industry. The fact that it stood for "Raster Image Processor" was much less well known or used, but everyone knew "RIP".  The term's scope expanded beyond just creating a digital image file from an analog description of the image, and, soon, scanning an image was also sometimes referred to as ripping.  "Ripping" had become so disconnected from its original meaning that it became essentially a synonym for "digitizing" of any sort.
When the practice of digitizing audio from an analog source became common, that also came to be known as ripping.  It seems the scope was then further expanded to cover any process of converting files from one digital audio format to another, and now even to laying audio files onto an MP3 player or a disc (replacing the term "burning").
BTW, usage of the term in what I see as its original context (computer graphics printing) has become much less common in recent years because most printers these days have built-in processors to perform the ripping.  That is, most users don't ever need to think about ripping a PCL6, HPGL, etc. (or often even PostScript) file into a bitmap file before sending it to the printer because the printer itself is capable of reading the source version and can then draw out the picture right in its memory to create a rasterized version.Starling2001 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to agree that the term originated with Raster Imagine Processing. I've been saying this for years! 68.45.3.28 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: +1 for Raster Imagine Processing, that is my recollection also, we just need a reference. Chalky (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. That the term carried with it the parallel meaning of "ripping something/something off" is just one of those coincidences of terminology that computing is rife with. It's probably one of the factors that ensures that a word will come into wide usage. But I think the article should at least mention somewhere that the term "RIP" can also refer to Raster Image Processing, or to Raster Image Processor. rowley (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: From "raster image processing"?

message: I added explanation of abbreviation BDrip a few months back but now some jerk has removed it. Instead of adding HDrip etc.
I wrote a description of the FREE firewalll Kerio 2.1.5 some months back, the other versions are not free. Some jerks turned that into an ad page for Kerio/Sunbelt
I tried to inform about a company secretly owned by the Scientologists. But no that was not allowed.
I give up on Wikipedia. Jerks are allowed to edit anything. And the ones who try to tidy things up usually make it worse and are some kind of psychos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.36.29 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason why Wikipedia will never be great 

message: I'm concerned that the section on "legality" misrepresents the issues a bit. 
There is widespread agreement that, if you have music that you didn't pay for, a crime has been committed. (There are exceptions, but this is the basic idea. ) This should be stated fairly clearly at the top of the section. 
What is unclear is exactly when the crime was committed and by whom.  Consider the ways that copyrighted material could arrive on your computer: a friend buys it, rips it, burns you a copy, hands you the CD, and you rip it. Or, a friend buys it, rips it, hands you the original CD, and you rip it. Or, a stranger buys a copy, rips it, makes it "available" (through Kazaa, or whatever), you download it. The legal issues basically boil down to identifying when the crime occurred. Was it the first rip? The hand off? The second rip? Or (in the last case) was it making it "available"? Or was it the download? These are the things that are at issue in the legal cases.
We have to be careful to put our personal beliefs aside and report the issues accurately. This includes conceding to the other side the points they have won. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch for bias 

message: Regarding the link to "LAME Open source encoder": While one might choose to encode/compress audio to the MP3 format when ripping a CD, does that make a link to an MP3 encoder appropriate for this article? Isn't that like having an external link to a type/brand of cheese on the Wine article? There's a relationship, but... --anon 24.192.9.141 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends. In this case it's somewhat relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have any actual bearing on it. For now I'm removing the link. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links; Is an MP3 encoder appropriate? 

message: There should be mention of the RealNetworks v. DVD-CCA case regarding the legality of DVD ripping in United States. The injunction in the case stated that "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies." This means that it is illegal for anyone to make or distribute software that circumvents DRM, but it is legal for a consumer to use circumvention software to backup their DVD.
Proposed change: ...the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it illegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption. the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute circumvention tools and use those tools for non-fair use purposes. In the case RealNetworks v. DVD-CCA, the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies."1 Diafygi (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article after no objection. (Diafygi (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RealDVD and US Legality Clarification 

message: I think that this reference that comes from comlaw.gov.au states that you can now legally rip your own CD in Australia. If someone wants to check this and write it up then I think it would be quite beneficial as the cited reference given is not a .gov.au reference.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exazonk (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: The term "copying" is used throughout the article. Indeed, Ripping is not typically synonymous with "copying," because audio and/or visual representations of source media data are typically recoded into altogether new digital data. That is, the encoding/transcoding processes most commonly selected when source media are "ripped" create data that can then be rendered visually and/or audibly in similar fashion to how source data are rendered (encode looks a lot like original), but once encoded/transcoded, the actual "ripped" data are entirely different from the source data.
That is, more succinctly, ripping translates multimedia data to *new* data. As such, the term "copy" is not (directly) applicable. Media are "re-encoded" to new digital media and other terms, but not "copied" to it.
Arguments have been made this issue is germane to matters of intellectual property, but that prospective relevance isn't my basis for mentioning the distinction. My motive is accuracy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pause2Reflect (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that ripping often involves transcoding, but not always. At present, the article does make some effort to explain that ripping generally involves repackaging, if not also compressing/transcoding. We could probably phrase things a little better, but I think it would be confusing if we tried to get the reader to have a more nuanced understanding of the word copying when the article is focused on copyright law, where any facsimile is almost without exception considered a copy. —mjb (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "copying" is at best imprecise, at worse inaccurate, at worst slanted 

message: The intro section of this article reads like someone's personal soapbox, and it includes no sources for its several claims. Furthermore, it appearss to be claiming Wikipedia as a source.rowley (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro section