Existing users, 
Why would any consumer be motivated to use this instead of something like Mac The Ripper or Handbrake?
Using any of these, I am merely making an archive of a Disc I own, which gives me a license to view each copyrighted work serially and not for public exhibition. Whether I accomplish this using a DRM protected copy or not is not a legal, moral, or ethical dilemma for me. I am clearly following the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law continues to evolve. And by using this tool, which is free (as in beer), as well as free of restriction, I am truly adding convenience to my experience.
While there may be some small proportion of the market who will be motivated by a sense of principle to suffer some limitations or inconveniences to preserve or reinstate some sort of protection on their archives, this fraction is not sufficiently large to make for a plausible business model. Most people will either carry their physical media around with them, or rip these to an unprotected archive on a large volume.
I like Flip4Mac wmv codec for Mac. It's essential. But Drive-in? Superfluous.
Flip4Mac Drive-in
Store and play your DVD movie library on your Mac
Version: 1.0.3.1
Don't Understand The Benefit to the Consumer
Feedback Type: Commentary
Contributed by: bughunter69 Friday, September 05 2008 @ 10:55 PM PDT
Product Platform: MacOSX
Used Product For: Have Not Tried
Recommend Product: NO
Comments
Neither are you. - caesurae
One could easily argue that using Flip4Mac's Drive-In software to copy DVDs to your computer is also in violation of the DMCA and other copyright statutes and is therefor illegal.Oh, and MacTheRipper also creates a LOSSLESS copy, unless you consider the absence of the CSS encryption and various other copy protection schemes a "loss".
Sunday, September 07 2008 @ 01:47 PM PDT
Your comment is irrelevant - bughunter69
Because first, I didn't make a statement about the letter of the law, except to say it's in flux. The spirit of the law, one assumes, is its intent to prevent piracy. If I make a non-CSS copy of a DVD I purchased legally, and choose to view that while not making the original DVD available to anyone else, I am not violating the spirit of the law because I am not pirating the movie.Secondly, this sort of "crime" is virtually non-detectable, and therefore unenforcable. Also, this law has not yet been rigorously tested in the context I describe above, and I daresay there's a better than 50/50 chance that it would not survive a competent challenge in a fair court, or that the anticompetitive aspects of the anti-circumvention section as written will elicit future legislation amending these provisions. This is what I meant by "the letter of the law continues to evolve."
Finally, all of the above is academic anyway, because the thesis of my original comment was criticism of the market concept for Drive-in. There are other methods widely available, both legal and illegal, that provide far more convenience than Drive-In and it's no secret that most people are willing to use them.
Dependance on a controversial law to create a market is a poor business model for a commercial product. And given the availability of other, more convenient methods, Drive-In is also superfluous.
Sunday, September 07 2008 @ 10:49 PM PDT
Re: Your comment is irrelevant - Dennis Henley
I'd hate to be in court relying on the "spirit of the law" to exonerate me while the "letter of the law" is doing its best to convict me.MacTheRipper may be a solution for some, but the latest version can only be had by a less than above board means of paying a "donation" in Swiss Francs and being emailed a secret unlocking code which, if you haven't read how to install, won't work (the installation instructions are on the website where you found the info about donating - but when you donate, don't even mention MTR or you'll be ignored). And then after you rip a disc, the program reminds you to donate again. If you want an update to the program, you have to provide a history of donations and all the related paypal numbers and amounts.
But the worst part of this is that MTR leaves behind "hidden" files on your computer so even if you erase the files you've ripped, there's a nice history of what you've done for anyone who knows how to check.
I don't know if Drive-In is legal or not. All I know is that it doesn't circumvent copy protection and gives me the ability to make a backup copy of my media (which has been granted to me long before the digital rights act).
I've used the program and it works fine. It takes about 30 minutes to rip a DVD to your drive. If you give Drive-In the UPC from the DVD box, the program will download info from Amazon, including the box cover. You can made a DVD case and rip all the discs to it and then watch it from your computer. And, when I finish ripping a DVD I don't get a "reminder" to donate more money.
Drive-In is readily available from Flip4Mac's site. Quick, what's the MTR site? Oh, that's right, you have to use Google to find the site that has the info on how you can order MTR (just don't mention the program when you order it). You can argue about following the "Spirit of the Law", but why should you feel like a criminal when you buy MTR? In the next update I suspect that we'll have to put unmarked bills in a paper bag and leave it on a street corner somewhere...
I give Drive-In a big thumbs up for doing what it claims to do and for not giving the user a hassle about doing it.
Sunday, September 14 2008 @ 03:50 PM PDT
You're not correct on the law - cseeman
The DMCA makes it ILLEGAL to break the copy protection of a protected DVD. Drive-in is the only product on the Mac market that copies DVDs legally.Drive-in makes a LOSSLESS copy. It is the same quality of the original and keeps the entire DVD structure intact.
Reply to This
Sunday, September 07 2008 @ 07:26 AM PDT