Existing users, log in.  New users, create a free account.  Lost password?

Mac OS X  |  Audio / Video  |  Rip / Burn / Image  |  Flip4Mac Drive-in  |  Deeply suspicious - think before you leap...

Flip4Mac Drive-in

Flip4Mac Drive-in

Store and play your DVD movie library on your Mac

Version:  1.0.3.1

   [ Views: 885 ]

Deeply suspicious - think before you leap...

Feedback Type:  Commentary

Contributed by: CraigP Friday, December 01 2006 @ 01:57 AM PST

Product Platform: MacOSX

Used Product For: Have Not Tried

Recommend Product: NO

This sounds like a great idea - being able to create images of your favourite DVDs on your computer for playback later.

My biggest concern is HOW Drive-in does what it does. There is no technical information on their web site (as far as I could see from my cursory inspection) about what format they use to store your movies on your computer - but my guess (based on the other software that Flip4Mac write - Quicktime plugin for playing Windows Media files) I would guess it is some kind of proprietary Windows Media-based format and includes some kind of Windows Media DRM (Digital Rights Management) to stop you sending the DVD image to someone else for them to play.

Without this verging off into a rant about DRM - there are some facts of life that people who are against DRM need to accept: it will be a very long time before content providers are willing to give away their media in a format that doesn't lock it down to being played by the person who bought it. So, if you want to do it legally, DRM is currently the only way.

So, for the sake of argument, let's consider DRM as a given. To my mind, the crux of the issue about DRM (and therefore, whether you should use Drive-In) comes down to WHO creates the DRM format the content that you paid for comes in. There are three main players right now: Apple, Microsoft and Real. Real don't seem to have a hope in hell, so let's just consider Microsoft and Apple for the moment.

What this whole issue basically boils down to is whether you want Microsoft in control of the content you've paid for, or Apple.

For my money, I'm running an Apple computer where Quicktime, iTunes and Apple DRM support are (funnily enough) rather good. The support for Windows Media on an Apple computer relies entirely on one company (Flip4Mac) being around and updating the plugins for Quicktime that allow us Mac users to play Windows Media. Microsoft themselves have washed their hands of the whole affair and given up support their own format on our OS themselves.

So, for every piece of content you have in Windows Media format on your Mac, you are completely reliant on a company that isn't even Microsoft to keep the software updated so you can play the content that YOU PAID FOR.

Not to mention the fact that you're supporting the proliferation of a format that is completely non-standards compliant (proprietary), when there are perfectly good standards compliant formats out there that could be used. For every piece of Windows Media that is created, there is one more piece of media that must be played on Windows or by using a third-party plug-in on the Mac (Linux users have no hope). In contrast, Apple's iTunes music format, and Apple's predominant video format (h.264) plays by default on any platform with no special software installed (other than a popular media player) - BECAUSE BOTH FORMATS ARE OPEN STANDARDS.

OK, truth of the matter is that there is no other viable alternative to Drive-In right now that uses anything other than Windows Media. Microsoft have opened up their DRM scheme for anyone to use, whereas Apple have made sure that, so far, only Apple can create content that contains Apple's DRM.

You're left with three alternatives: 1) Encoding your DVDs using Drive-In and hope that Flip4Mac don't go under and their plug-ins are well-written, 2) rip your DVDs using Handbrake into non-DRM'ed h.264 format and play it wherever you like (not to mention the fact it'll take up less space on your computer) - this option is currently probably illegal however, and 3) buy a cheap CD holder case and carry around your DVDs.

The choice is yours.   

0 of 3 users found this helpful.

Rate this Commentary

Was this Commentary helpful? Yes | No

Comments

5 comments |

Nothing suspicious at All - cseeman

Read above comment. It's MPEG2. You copy a DVD with its CSS protection.

Reply to This

Friday, December 01 2006 @ 03:36 AM PST


Nothing suspicious at All - cseeman

Read above comment. It's MPEG2. You copy a DVD with its CSS protection.

Reply to This

Friday, December 01 2006 @ 03:36 AM PST


Deeply suspicious - think before you leap... - alajuela

Man oh man, what a load. Nothing suspicious here at all. Sheesh, get a life and some dose of objectivity. You can't figure out how it works, so you instantly suspect foul play. Well, that's rational.

Reply to This

Friday, December 01 2006 @ 08:11 AM PST


Deeply suspicious - think before you leap... - ralphengelhardt

I think you may be missing the point on what drive in really doing. It is NOT encoding or transcoding the content of the dvd. What drive in does in make a disk image of the dvd on your hard drive, so that when mounted it appears to the OS (and dvd player) the same as the actual disk itself. All copy protection is retained and used. So you are "stuck" with the same copy protection as on the original disk, but you gain all of the picture quality of the disk as well as the menus, features etc.

Reply to This

Friday, December 01 2006 @ 12:28 PM PST


Deeply suspicious - think before you leap... - bonobo

Yes, I agree.

In Germany, for example, and I guess in quite a few other countries use of this program with copy protected DVDs will be illegal.

I mean -- what sense does it make to actually clone a protected DVD including the protection and then assuming this may be legal?

Tell me: Is stealing the safe with the jewels inside less illegal than breaking the safe on location and then stealing "only" the jewels? <shakehead>

And no, this doesn't mean that I'm a big friend of DRM, or better of the laws that have been made to protect the rights of artists. If the artists would be those wo most profited from this I'd have no issue with it.

Reply to This

Friday, December 01 2006 @ 03:24 PM PST