|
|
|
copyright removal
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 10:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Only to the extent that neither you nor Sophocles actually managed to understand what I was saying, but instead continued to witter on repeating yourselves over and over again about something quite different
You weren't saying anything that isn't common knowledge to anyone that owns a DVD burner. That fact that you know it is proof of how simplistic of your thinking is. Let's have some real fun.
How does a transcoder differ from and encoder?
What is a physical protection?
What is the difference between a hardware encoder and a software encoder and how do you get by CSS when using a hardware encoder?
What is a PGC chain and how does it relate to the structure of a DVD?
What is the definition of a glib no nothing mouth piece? Answer "Moglex
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Moglex
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. January 2006 @ 10:24 |
Link to this message
|
brobear,
Quote:
See what I mean? LOL Another juvenile outburst. Ad-hominems? Not likely, just drawing attention to the antics of a pompous egotist.
You clearly don't know what an ad-hominem is, as you've equally clearly used at least one.
And, once again, you avoid any logical argument and resort to simple name calling.
Sad.
Quote:
2oldGeek
I may follow suit. LOL My good old Daddy told me not to argue with fools, they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. I'm afraid that's what I've allowed moglex to do. ;)
Don't put yourself down. No dragging was required. I just had to yell down the well :)
Sophocles,
Quote:
You weren't saying anything that isn't common knowledge to anyone that owns a DVD burner. That fact that you know it is proof of how simplistic of your thinking is.
A fascinating piece of logic!
By your reasoning anyone who knows a basic piece of information is guilty of simplistic thinking. A truly weird position, but I doubt that you'll defend such an absurdity logically. More name calling would be my guess :)
As to the rest:
Coming up with a list of pretty elementary questions proves nothing. Even if I troubled to answer them, you would simply say I got them of the 'net (which is, come to think of it, true. I expect you did the same).
The extent you and your little pal brobear will go to to avoid logical argument would be remarkable were it not so depressing.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. January 2006 @ 10:37
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. January 2006 @ 10:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Have a gday, bro
There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading; The few who learn by observation;
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves... |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 10:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
By your reasoning anyone who knows a basic piece of information is guilty of simplistic thinking.
No just you, by your lack of reasoning. Only the simple minded such as yourself who has nothing more than basic knowledge but thinks that they somehow have more were being targeted. In my line of work we call that "over inflated sense of self."
You didn't answer any of my questions because you don't have the answers but I bet that you will have an explanation for that too. Maybe its something like "thou shalt not temp god." I have a problem with people who self ordain themselves as intellects without substance while trying to convince everyone else as to how smart they are and you are a prime example.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
Moderator
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
I have been following this thread for a few weeks now and just can't help to step in and lend a hand.
Here are some links to help everyone involved in this debate...
http://thesaurus.reference.com/ for everyone who had run out of words.
Quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Some very useful resources...
Can't you all just agree to disagree? We are, afterall here to help...and I don't see any of that going on.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
We're past agreeing and disagreeing, it's come down to personal insults by non contributors. I didn't come into this thread to exchange insults but there is a point where I will not stand by and accept them from an egotistic non contributer. I have however gone as far as I will go in this disagreement because further discourse without goals avails no one.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
28. January 2006 @ 15:37 |
Link to this message
|
good call soph!
Quote:
Can't you all just agree to disagree? We are, afterall here to help
I once left this forum over such nonsense, but will always remember some of the members here!
the thing is it get's increasingly difficult to help people that post experiments based in error or untested theories under the guise that they are the "ultimate truth" when some of the members here watched the field progress to what it is now then someone comes along and thinks they have outsmarted the powers that be, in a month or two!
all they really need to know is how to read and then who to believe that is where those like ascii,soph,arnie & brobear come in they are the most important part in the whole dynamic they have to sort the rubbish from the fact so that reading does not become misleading!
I thank all for your contributions for I think those that read this thread will benefit as long as they can discern the wisdom from the bs.
@ moglex I can see you've tried to read and learn seems from a very dated knowledge base of video authoring! I'd like to congratulate you on your studies! but one thing troubles me! you know not one you speak of and throw around a few technical terms so as to intimidate some of the members here,I'm guessing?? what good is to come of this!
Quote:
you would point to a flaw in the logic
the fact is you are not just taking a pic of the video a disk cannot contain an actual image as if it is a film from a old time reel projector the disk holds bits & bytes configured and encoded your simple logic is just that flawed in it's simplicity! people have been trying to explain the flaws but you are not trying to grasp them! but feel free to pick up some terms and take them to another forum to argue about what you don't really know about!
I don't under stand what your point is you speak of big dvd pirates and bit perfect copies! like this is some world of fairy tails designed around your flimsy arguments! why would you want the protection's on your dvd, are you selling porno's by any chance! because that would be more interesting than reading your post's on nothing but a tendency to stir the masses into madness!
do you know what you are arguing maybe there was a point nestled in your convoluted posting's but truthfully it was painful to read what little I did your throwing terms around you obviously don't understand! you must have been told so before because all your belittling sounds as if you are replying to your own post's do we bore you?? by not posting right away to utter rubbish! I'm sorry to have brought this into the light but by now any who have read a post of your's kinda get's it! you are overly confident about your knowledge! and it seem's you enjoy!
about bro bear's "bullying techniques" I don't believe he is trying to bully you just feels it's his duty to oppose such things that would represent taking a step back in the collective knowledge of the community! if you dont' understand why he is so determined to oppose you then or his role in this thread please start over @ the top of this post!
g'day folks! l8
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. January 2006 @ 15:39
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 16:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I once left this forum over such nonsense, but will always remember some of the members here!
I don't think anyone should leave, you are all great assets to the site and the value of your contributions may never be known. Everyone who has posted in detail in this thread is very knowledgable about DVD authoring...there are just varying opinions or different schools of thought at work.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. January 2006 @ 16:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ironic LOCO, you maybe the only responder in the last few pages of this thread who isn't!
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 16:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
@garmoon
Isn't an asset to the site? Thanks, buddy...
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. January 2006 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
And so it dies like this? Even in death some things were not alive. LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. January 2006 @ 16:47
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
28. January 2006 @ 21:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles
Old Mowgly couldn't understand his own dictionary. His discourse was a perfect example of ad-hominem (appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think). His last diatribe was merely the parroting of our words in a futile effort to anger us and improve his image, if only in his own eyes. My daddy was right about fools, even ones that ate a dictionaray. LOL
Mowglex
In your case I feel justified in using ad-hominem statements. You will probably be forever what you've exhibited here, a sociopahic twit (ad-hominem). Your type rarely changes. Despite my failings, I at least contribute to the knowledge base. All you wanted was an argument and that's all you've contributed. Your only claim to knowledge is an assertion you have some obscure programming skills and can use a few big words in a written discourse. Your continued baiting and argumentative behavior only lends credence to my original premise, you're being imbecilic (ad-hominem, but true). Your asinine behavior shows Sophocles is correct in his evaluation, you have an "over inflated sense of self" which you will defend no matter how low you sink (already proven).
You've been unable to add any knowledge to this forum, yet you've tried to berate those who have. Sophocles asked questions of a technical nature that you've avoided answering. Given enough time, you may no doubt come up with a few answers; not to give any reasonable answer, but to try to prove to yourself and others you can. It's obvious you know nothing about encryption and decryption, other than what is in the dictionary (ad-hominem). You've had plenty of time to google around for answers, but it will be too late to improve your eroded image. Your persona has cracked, your academic air of superiority has vanished and you're showing the argumentative traits of an adolescent (true, but ad-hominem).
Unfortunate for you mowglex, you're not the only one who was allowed to read a dictionary.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. January 2006 @ 22:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
@LOCO You missed my pun. I meant that you were the only one who wasn't LOCO (Crazy) We all know your're a great asset. I'm on your side. I'll try to be more specific in the future.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
28. January 2006 @ 22:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Back on topic:
Apologies to any forum members who have been trying to glean useful info on encryption and decryption. The thread was about copyright removal. Among other things, that was covered. A brief summary consists of how the encryption functions and our findings. There is the encryption built into the system, CSS. Originally, all decryption needed to be was DeCSS. The movie industry, though somewhat misguided, is not without intelligent people. Since Pandora's Box had already been opened where CSS was concerned, they started adding structural encryption to target the software based systems doing the decryption. That leads to the situation where some deduced ISO files could be used to subvert the encryption better than the file mode. Further research (added to by 2oldgeek) showed that encryption is present in both the ISO format and File format. Of interest to the people interested in decryption are the more notable apps being used. AnyDVD (good retail driver type decryption tool), DVDFab Decrypter (good freeware ripper style decrypter), DVD Decrypter (freeware and once the best ripper type decrypter available), and DVD Shrink (the best freeware transcoder available) are among the best tools available. Just a quick note on DVD Shrink for those not familiar with this aspect of the app, it is able to make minor repairs to file structure (or allow for them) so the user can go ahead and do a successful transcode where other programs would error out. For editing encrypted files, VobBlanker is handy. For newer encryption systems such as Arccos and Puppetlock (structural encryption) DVD Decrypter needs the PSL2 files as a guide. Both DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink suffer from losing support, the decryption software continues to become more obsolete due to the movie industry adding newer and heavier encryption strategies.
For the time being we've learned that the encryption is pervasive in both ISO and File formats. The best success is using known good software and keeping the decryption software updated as much as possible. For those who like to edit, the forums supply good info on "how to" for different techniques. As mentioned, DVD Decrypter was weakened, but is still in the game. Likewise, DVD Shrink lost support, but it is still one of the heavy hitters.
As for "The Fog", with the Arccoss and Puppetlock encryption, it is one of the more difficult DVDs, but it is doable. As pointed out here (and later agreed to by 2oldgeek) ISO and File mode, both, can contain encryption and a person can succeed or fail using either or both. So far, without editing, different software combinations do make a difference as pointed out. Shrink being more forgiving does slightly better with different decryption tools. On this particular movie, I found the latest version of DVDFab Decrypter, to have the most usable rip with more transcoding and encoding software.
Hopefully, I've summed this up correctly and gotten back on topic. Anyone wanting to make additions and/or corrections, feel free to do so.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. January 2006 @ 22:14
|
|
Moglex
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. January 2006 @ 00:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am disinclined to continue the rather daft spat that has taken place over the past few days. I don't think anyone aquitted themselves particularly well with silly, condescending and patronising wind-ups flying around and getting in the way of sensible discussion.
For my part in this, I appologise, although I deny that any of this was done in an attempt to make myself 'look good'. Since I stated on several occasions that I'm no great (or even minor) expert on DVDD, I'm not sure how I was trying to improve my image (self or otherwise) by serially admitting that.
Fortunately, this is just one thread in hundreds, and I doubt that more many people have bothered to follow the invective, so I suppose no long term harm has been done.
My epithet for the latter half of this thread would be: "When wind-up merchants collide".
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. January 2006 @ 03:05 |
Link to this message
|
Moglex
In an effort to move this from a personal confrontation back to a discussion of the topic, let's just stick to the relevant material. I've already made an analysis of what this thread covered, other than the puerile bandying of words. The topic is open for discussion if you have any relevant contributions; credible and supported of course.
Quote:
Since I stated on several occasions that I'm no great (or even minor) expert on DVDD, I'm not sure how I was trying to improve my image (self or otherwise) by serially admitting that.
Outside your distaste for my beguiling personality, why did you condesend to inform me of how I was wrong in my interpretation of the material? So doing you proceeded to alienate those who also opposed the incorrect theory and followed with juvenile personal attacks. You actually said Quote:
I'll try and explain what I understand by what he's saying (and several decades of programming/analysis experience tells me makes complete sense).
There you were disagreeing with my opposition to an obviously wrong theory about ISO having an advantage over file mode in decryption. You were justifying your reasons by some self professed expertise in the field of programming and analysis. You also seemed to be fueled by a dislike of yours truly.
So, let's go over this in relation to the material and how you presented it.
Quote:
In one case (Files), the DVD is read as a series of files, and will have any junk that the protection racketeers put in there. Because DVD decryptor is attempting to recreate the file structure, it can be confused by protection it does not understand.
In the second case (ISO), DVDD is simply acting as a DVD player, but creating an ISO image of the data stream as it would be picked by any DVD player.
Now, we know that without the correct version, DVDD will fail to read certain disks in File mode.
We also know that the protection that can be applied to DVD's cannot be such that it will cause the DVD to fail to play in any £20 el cheapo edition DVD player from the local supermarket.
Thus, we can deduce that if LightningUK did his job properly (and he usually did), the ISO mode will produce a good file from any DVD, whereas the File mode cannot work with encryption methods that it has not been programmed to work with.
Here you are informing me and others on how DVD functions and how Lightning UK wrote the program. Your discourse definitely sounded as though you were professing a knowledge of the workings of DVD Decrypter, encryption, File-ISO modes, and LUK's programming.
On 14. January 2006 @ 12:41 I noticed your inquiring about DVD Decrypter. http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/287842 From the 14th to the 27th, a mere 13 days, you went from a novice in the understanding and/or use of Decrypter, to an expert in the field. Now you're again telling us you are no expert. Quote:
Since I stated on several occasions that I'm no great (or even minor) expert on DVDD,
I only question why you were making statements as though you were.
You obviously thought yourself knowledgable enough to belittle a comment I made as to CSS protection of copyrighted DVDs when I pointed you to the agency responsible as the agent between the movie industry and the hardware manufacuterers.
Quote:
What is clear is that you have little understanding of how computers (including DVD players) work at a basic level, and that you are quite happy to take the DVD CCA FAQ at face value when it contains quite a lot that is misleading - hardly surprising considering its obviously partisan nature. Of course, this does not mean that you do not know a great deal about how DVD's work at the user level, or what tools work best to access them.
To take the most obvious DVD CCA lie: "CSS prevents movies from being illegally duplicated, protecting the intellectual property of the manufacturers, producers and writers from theft."
This is plain garbage. The big DVD pirates can do a bit by bit copy and produce "bit perfect" copies, including PUF's and protection.
You profess to be no expert, yet you know enough to tell me I'm wrong and to say CSS doesn't exist or is a "lie'. By the way, the discussion here has always been about the everyman user of PC decryption, not high tech pirates. The discussion was on PC decryption with a subtopic of ISO and File mode. Obviously I have a better take on CSS, structural encryption and players and recorders (both at the electronic level and the working level). I presented my take on the topic in the previous post. It's open for discussion.
Later your understanding of ISO and File modes was further proven wrong by 2oldgeek finding his evaluation of decryption systems and file systems being based on incomplete findings. He found a copy of "The Fog" with the problematic structural encryption affecting decryption in both ISO and File modes. Separate findings of the same data, even including a proponent of the wrong theory, and the physical findings of others didn't impress you. You still went with your feeling. That discredited the theory you were supporting him on. Yet you persisted in your attacks on a purely hormonal level. Not quite the actions of a scholar. Then you tried to berate me and others for our behavior while acting more juvenile than your accusations of us. Yes, daft would be a good term to describe the behavior. If the apology was sincere, I'm sure the membership will receive it in the spirit it was given. Likewise, my apology is proffered to the forum.
Let the juvenile behavior cease. If you want to respond to the analysis I gave trying to get this thread back on track, feel free to do so. I only request that you show evidence that is credible or can be repeated by the rest of the members. For instance I showed file structures, the archival breakdown of ISO showing VIDEO_TS. I supplied logs and various screenshots showing how I drew my conclusions. I also gave examples of software use with particular programs and on particular DVDs with stated encryption systems. Also, I gave documentation from a legitimate organization, though you think it a lie. CSS is there, it just isn't infallible. Structural encryption is there as well and it doesn't interfere with CSS. It does interfere with the software and strategies we use in trying to decrypt DVDs with computers. I look forward to a legitimate discussion of the topic. There is no problem with your disagreeing with me as long as there is some credible proof other than your feeling something to be true.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2006 @ 03:23
|
|
Moglex
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. January 2006 @ 03:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think the problem is one of perception.
You perceived that I was defending 2oldGeek's theory as being correct. I wasn't. I was defending it against being called foolish.
The reason I didn't consider it foolish was because I could clearly see a situation where a similar theory, with a similar program could be correct.
Where this whole business of DVD encryption puzzles me is in the ability of the protection people to 'retrofit' new encryptions that will work with ancient DVD players, but defeat decrytion programs.
To explain:
An encryption/decryption system consists of two parts: The algorithm, and the key(s). (Sometimes, if the equipment is secure, the key(s) may be embedded in the algorithm, but they will be present, nontheless.
Thus, in order to decrypt, either 'legitimately', as in the case of a DVD player, or for the purposes of 'cracking', you need to know both the algorithm, and the key(s).
With DVD encryption, the algorithm and keys were embedded in DVD players from day one, and no firmware upgrade has been necessary to play any DVD since. Thus the decryption algorithm and keys have not changed.
A while ago, our Scandanavian hero 'cracked' CSS, and for a while all DVD's were readable. (If a DVD is readable, in the sense that the video and audio streams and the control data can be read and decrypted, then it can be played and copied).
For the crack to work, it would normally be necessary to know the algorithm and keys used for the decryption. These would be the same algorithm and keys that were embedded in DVD players from day one.
And yet, and here is the puzzling thing, somehow, Sony and others have managed to change the encryption sytem in such a way that DVD players with the original embedded decryption algorithm and keys continue to work flawlessly with the new DVD's, and yet programs that include the 'crack' don't.
This is where the puzzle lies. It is almost as if the original crack was not a complete crack and only cracked as much of the decrytion algorithm as was being used at the time, hence allowing Sony et al to start including elements of encryption that had never been cracked, but where, nontheless included in the decryption algorithms embedded in all DVD players.
And this is why I could see a clear scenario where 2oldGeek's theory would make perfect sense. And that is wht I took offence to it being refered to as foolishness. It isn't always foolish to be wrong.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. January 2006 @ 04:43 |
Link to this message
|
I'll not get into defending a choice of words. It's not always a matter of popularity. Plus going there only leads us back to personal opinions of each other. Letting the facts speak for themselves, had you proposed the same theory in one of the advanced discussion threads, you would have encountered instant disagreement. Much of this material has been encountered in other threads and some people continue to go against findings that have been tested repeatedly. Those of us that have been on the forum for some time hear these wrong theories presented constantly by people making suppositions founded on incomplete data and insufficient testing. It does get old.
As for the mystery of old players playing the new DVDs with the newer encryptions, we've pointed that out. CSS was introduced in the beginning and for a while it worked. Then the stolen algorithm and keys were released. Once that was done, programmers knew how the system worked. Subsequent algorithms used by the movie industry were written with the original CSS in mind. They weren't intended to interfere with or change CSS. What those changed algorithms do is target the strategies used for decryption. Structural protection is the name given to the encryption. Note in this AnyDVD analysis that it lists CSS separately from region protection and structural encryption.
So, it's a matter of adding on to achieve an additional objective, not to change the original.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2006 @ 04:43
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. January 2006 @ 05:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Moglex
Excuse me if this is a bit simplistic. But it should be informative for those not familiar with how the encryption system works.
Both players and recording devices are equipped with CSS protection. Same as the first equipment. The objective is that the equipment play the encrypted media, but not record if the presence of the CSS algorithm is found on the media; simple out and no in. DeCSS was the first decrytion tool (algorithm) for bypassing the decryption. As the player plays the CSS protected media, the decryption software ( DeCSS) separates the CSS encrypttion from the other digital data recorded. That gives a cleaned source with no encryption. Without CSS protection the recorder now reads the digital data for recording purposes. That algorithm remains unchanged. The newer encryptions are written with CSS in mind. So, the new DVDs with updated encryption still play on the old players. With the new encrytion added, the software written to decrypt the algorthm is no longer correct. The software encounters what it sees to be errors. Knowing how the algorithms work, software authors change the algorithm to fit the newer encryptions. So the industry adds on and the software developers compensate. It's an action-reaction environment, keeping in mind that nothing is being done to alter the original CSS protection and playability.
|
|
soundmax
Junior Member
|
29. January 2006 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi all,
I've had no problems using the following backup method:
- DVDD File Mode (main movie +IFOs)
- Shrink (ISO image file and burn with DVDD)
- Verbatim Disc
Quite simple and it works. Can't beat that combo.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. January 2006 @ 09:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
To do what? If you're talking about doing "the Fog", I'm happy for you. If you did "The Fog" without any editing, check the source and tell us the type encryption. It may be like the one 2oldgeek found earlier. IFO mode is no magic method either, the encryption algorithm is embedded in the files and has to be removed for a system to record the digital data. There would be the minimum CSS and at most Arccoss, Puppetlock to contend with.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2006 @ 09:03
|
|
ascii
Junior Member
|
29. January 2006 @ 09:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
they are on about file mode,movie but with ifo files, not the actual IFO mode in decrypter, however you could bypass the arccos bit, bad sectors etc using IFO mode where ISO and FILE mode would fail, though you would have to know before hand which cells to untick.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2006 @ 09:08
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. January 2006 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey, as I have found out, there are several levels of protection on the same Movie Title even in the same region.
Some, you will have no problems with and others like ARccOS, Puppet Lock, you will not be able to handle in ANY mode, that is to say ISO, File F or IFO. God bless Slysoft they seem to be on top of the situation..
@brobear
I am going thru my discs and doing a lot of ripping, testing, etc.
I loved this discussion and got a lot out of it. I don?t like pissing contests so most of the time I kept my big mouth shut. LOL
I respect the members that have more knowledge than I and don?t wish to be a burr under anyones saddle.
I will do my testing and research, then I will let you know and ask for your opinion of anything I find? Thanks bro.
There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading; The few who learn by observation;
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves... |
|
ss2trunks
Member
|
29. January 2006 @ 11:00 |
Link to this message
|
Ok I've been having problems burning movies with decrypter and shrink used together lately. So I've been trying to use shrink burning with Nero but it can never burn the dvd and always says failure. The version of Nero I have is 6.6.0.18 it saved the compressed movie into a folder but I cant get it to record onto any discs from the folder is my version of Nero bad? I just updated it to the current one any help would be appreciated.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. January 2006 @ 13:51 |
Link to this message
|
2oldGeek
Yep, AnyDVD has to be the last major target for the MPAA. Rumor has it that slysoft is located on an Island somewhere where they are unaffected by the spread of copyright law.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
