2009-05-28, 14:39
pre1014 Wrote:A HUGE thing with this is that the solution (to be included in the svn) would have to work on ALL platforms. This would be a huge NO to integrating dvd2xbox code since it wouldn't really work in windows/osx/linux.First of all, the idea of using the dvd2xbox code as a base was only a suggestion, not a requirement. Secondly, why would the 'backend' code from DVD2Xbox not be portable to windows/mac/linux? Is there is a problem with porting the GUI from it then just use XBMC's libgui, which should be used in any case, just look into the actually 'ripping' code.
pre1014 Wrote:Actually, a while back they said there was no chance of this happening because they didn't want to deal with the MPAA and lawsuits.Who said what? Please refrain from posting such statements unless you can back them up with a reference.
In most countries "Fair Use" laws are in place to allow the users to make a copy of digital media for personal use. If these "Fair Use" laws where not in place Audio-CD to MP3 ripping for playback on portable media players would be dead a long time ago. I do not see why DVD-Videos should be treated differently than Audio-CDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
What could be done to get around the MPAA is not decrypt the CCS encryption when ripping DVD-Video with XBMC, that way it would at least not be possible to burn copies of the ripped DVDs to use in other players. Since XBMC contains a DeCSS library it would still be able playback those ripped DVDs even though they they where still encrypted with CSS to protect them, ...that is basically what Kaleidescape does (though I believe that they also apply their own encryption on top of CSS for extra DRM protection):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidescape
Quote:Fair Use
In 2004, the consortium behind digital video disc technology, the DVD Copy Control Association, sued Kaleidescape over its "jukebox" technology, in an attempt to stop the company from allowing its customers to rip, store, and stream video from DVD sources. The case was considered by some to be an important recent test of fair use precedent, given advancements in technology and the digital media rights field. In 2007, the company won the case[8]. The case is currently under appeal.