For Anyone Interested: A Brief History with Physical Media (and Ripping)

[JoshuaHawthorne@2026]

This post is actually based on a journal record I've created, but since it has no sensitive content, here you go:

From the time I was able to recognize what an optical disc "was" and how to use one up to last year (with the last media I earnestly viewed through an optical drive/player being The Teaching Company's "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire"), I was content to consume the media the traditional way, that being through dedicated players/drives: among my earliest media consumed was primarily animated. Cars (2006), The Lion King (the original, not the 2019 remake), Tom and Jerry, SpongeBob, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and even the infamous Bee Movie has provided my younger self with fond, unforgettable memories. However, as this past decade (the 2010s) progressed, my viewing focus gradually switched from physical media to streaming (primarily through Netflix and pre-Disney Hulu), mainly due to how more immediately convenient it was to open an app/website and watch media than to get up, put a functioning disc in a player, and view it through that method (this also extended to music, with me consuming it through YouTube, Soundcloud, and occasionally Pandora). However, it tended to irk me at times regarding a release that was on one streaming service that disappeared or the general lack of agency and long-term convenience with respect to my media consumption (e.g., since I technically don't "own" the media I consume on account of the nature of streaming, I'm constantly at the mercy of an existent Internet connection, subscription and, as mentioned, licensing), and ads definitely weren't helping matters. So, with these thoughts simmering deep in the recesses of my mind, during December of 2018 (the end of the first half of my Junior high-school year), I used a Target gift card to buy two DVD sets as a way of returning to my roots: they were "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and "SpongeBob: The First 100 Episodes", and though I started to watch them, I'd ultimately have stopped by early March of the following year. Why? Likely a lack of personal motivation, particularly with me having been spoiled on streaming's more immediate convenience (as I'd have to insert a disc for every instance of intended viewing). It wasn't that I wouldn't have continued with those copies (as I would later buy and fully watch SpongeBob's First 300 Episodes and "Avatar: The Last Airbender" several years later), but by the time I may have been in a mood, they were hundreds of miles away from me as they languished in a Buffalo, NY UHaul storage unit. (When we moved to Tampa, FL, we had to leave some possessions behind.)

Fast-forward a few years to 2021 (while staying at Newport News, VA) where I wanted to try again in terms of revitalizing my old interest, and thus I bought from Amazon a BD-compatible optical drive and two BD sets (the two being "Ken Burns: The Vietnam War" and "Gods and Generals: Director's Cut"); however, I learned the hard way that attempting to watch Blu-rays on a computer was much more difficult in contrast to a DVD, and that was this strange, consumer-insulting thing called AACS (Advanced Access Control System), a DRM scheme meant to prevent unauthorized duplication and ultimately piracy. After some research, I learned that I needed software that's built to playback BDs specifically, so after languishing through a trial version of PowerDVD, I bought a full license two years later and was finally able to enjoy not only the remainder of Ken Burns (I would've long since finished Gods and Generals), but also additional home media releases that I would've added to my collection (primarily JoJo's Bizarre Adventure up to Golden Wind Part 1), a habit that's been active ever since. At last, I could relive a forgotten hobby and enjoy the long-term convenience of physical media. Even so, there was still a bit of a problem; with AACS being as annoying as it was, I couldn't do basic things during playback like take simple snapshots (at least not on PowerDVD); also, I was still mildly troubled with the inconvenience of having to insert the same disc multiple times if I wasn't done with the main feature--what if I wanted to watch it on my phone in bed, but without the inconveniences of streaming? However, questions like these I didn't yet have an answer for, at least not until the spring of this past year. During that time, as I surfed the web, I happened upon a piece of software called Nero, a free CD ripper; after trying it on one of my recently purchased CDs (of the first batch I would've owned in AGES), I was impressed with how much more convenient it was to just enjoy the bare audio files and give my drive and disc a break afterwards, and this was technically a phenomenon I would've experinced a long time ago through mp3 players and during my days with Windows Vista (I simply didn't know the term "CD ripping"). Regardless, CD ripping soon replaced listening to the media through the disc as my primary method of CD consumption. This soon extended to discs containing video files, as well, with my first exposure being Handbrake; however, though it could natively rip DVDs, it couldn't rip BDs, leading me to eventually stumple upon BD-decrypting and/or BD-ripping software like DVDFab's Passkey, Xreveal, and (the principal) MakeMKV (this last one being through an article that listed useful disc-ripping tools). They worked as advertised (at least for me), but the issue was that the first item required payment in order to use it indefinitely and the last item required one to wait on occasionally-released beta keys unless a full license was paid for. MakeMKV offered the better deal (especially since it simultaneously decrypted DVDs/BDs AND ripped them), so after languishing with the beta-key experience, in February of this year, I payed for a full license and have enjoyed the software ever since. (To explain the initial shock with viewing BDs on PCs, I was raised in a primarily DVD-and-CD household, BDs being virtually unheard of.)

To summarize, after an initial "golden era" of personal physical-media consumption (specifically music and home video), my interest temporarily nosedived with the advent of streaming, but my frustrations with
the palpable, long-term transience of any content hosted on a particular streaming service eventually led to my reinterest in physical media, culminating in my new interest in media ripping and transcoding.

P.S.: Also, as far as my knowledge of copy-protection goes (it was an eye-opener to me that DVDs technically have a DRM system), it's likely down to my personal ignorance/naivete, but until relatively recently in my life, I never really heard of copy-protection/DRM as far as technology goes---I just assumed that (even with anti-piracy warnings) the video files stored on a disc were essentially the equivalent of audio files stored on CDs. It makes financial SENSE that DRM would exist (even if not too consumer-friendly), but still.

[Brazil2]

It makes financial SENSE that DRM would exist (even if not too consumer-friendly), but still.

BS. From the 60's to the end of the 90's we have all shared a lot of audio cassette tapes and this era was still the golden age of the vinyl records.

Because sharing music, or books or whatever else, doesn't shrink the market. A contrario it's making us to know more things, more variety, and the will to buy it, to own it.
So no, copy doesn't kill a market but it's keeping it alive.

[JoshuaHawthorne@2026]

To Brazil2

Speaking of DRM, my main issue is that--at least in terms of how it's commonly implemented--it treats people who do play by the rules as criminals, while the actual pirates end up relieving themselves of the arbitrary restrictions that the legal versions have, ultimately resulting in pirated/cracked copies of software/files delivering a better service. Like I've stated in my main post, while I can't apparently take Blu-ray snapshots using PowerDVD if the video content is read from the disc itself, I can do so if I were to use ripping software to make a DRM-stripped copy of said video content! To a certain extent, I wonder how effective DRM really is in ensuring a company's legitimate financial interests, since it ends up being circumvented in one way or another, anyway.

[DJ Bobo]

You may want to re-edit your post, by using formatting, and re-ordering the paragraphs, as when you copy-pasted, some line breaks are out of place.
The way it is right now is just unreadable :D

[Blue_MiSfit]

I wonder how effective DRM really is in ensuring a company's legitimate financial interests, since it ends up being circumvented in one way or another, anyway.


For those of us who make a living based on the revenue of the industry, this is quite important.

In my view it's all about level of effort. DRM and other content protection mechanisms let content owners have some control. Yes the elite pirates can almost always eventually get around even the highest levels of protection. I've seen first hand some incredibly clever stuff. However, with zero DRM it's trivial to completely bypass a service's paywall and it would be equally easy to setup a pirate service leeching off the main service's CDN, at the operator's expense! Even if content can be ripped and distributed via underground mechanisms, the very act of having DRM (leveraging uniquely generated licenses wrapping decryption keys in asymmetric crypto) generally prevents the latter, or at least sets up a system where it can be detected and blocked.

That means that unless you're someone who's willing to invest the time and energy to learn about the content piracy scene, if you want the content (and have the means) you will probably pay for it.

Take all of that with a big grain of salt. It's also totally impossible for premium content owners to sign off on distributing any service without DRM, even if said DRM can be circumvented by clever hackers. It's just a non-starter.

Yes unfortunately consumers are often burned by this. I recently got a fancy minivan for my rapidly expanding family, and it has a flip-down TV with an HDMI port. Cool! I've got several premium paid services on my kid's (older but still supported) iPad and I got a Lightning to HDMI adapter, only to discover it doesn't support HDCP (since the underlying tech apparently requires a transcode). No premium services for me. Bummer.

Can I fix this with a newer device with a native HDMI output? Maybe. But I'm still stuck with a totally legit non-piracy playback chain that DRM has interfered with. I'm like an OG HDTV adopter with a 1080i CRT and analog component inputs wanting HD video from a BluRay player. No go :(

[huhn]

and how much do they pay for these DRM mechanism?
i doubt DRM ever saved a single penny just the pure waste of time to created these protections to give the customer a worse product compared to the ripper is laughable.

what is needed to rip every video content on planned earth. a HD fury cause it can remove HDCP from any source. and the cleaver hacker do something completely different. this is just here to make an absolute point.

or to quote a wise man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQweFurRz4g

also why would a person that is unaware unwilling to learn about piracy care if the content he pays for has or has no DRM?

the industry is just getting ripped off by companies that produce these DRM.

gaming has proven that DRM is not needed to be successful. there are many games with zero DRM that sale astronomically good. and there are games that are not brought anymore by customer out of principle by just having denuvo.

[JoshuaHawthorne@2026]

Well, thanks for the interesting perspective, Blue_MiSfit. I'm not trying to claim that a company/individual who profits from their work shouldn't be legally/morally induced to protect their financial interests; I'm trying to say that--at least with how it's been generally implemented--DRM tends to be disproportionately at the expense of the legally-paying consumer: for example, I've already given Paramount money for their sold copy of "Sonic the Hedgehog 3", so with all due respect, who are they to dictate the "right" way for me to privately consume my media? To me, one of the main issues is that--in the US--DMCA S1201 prohibits ANY DRM circumvention for ANY reason, even if it's to fix your own device. This law doesn't do what most laws do in distinguishing intent and context: for example, if I break into someone's house to kill them, that incurs charges of burglary and murder; however, if I see a person's house on fire and I break into their house to save them, the law would excuse that action under me having saved the homeowner's life. To me, DRM circumvention is the digital equivalent of lockpicking---interestingly enough, lockpicking by itself isn't illegal (despite the negative connotations), only being so if it's done to commit a crime (such as hijacking a car or entering someone's home without permission). While you're obviously not allowed to use it to commit a crime, I'm confident you can legally lockpick the door to your own house or car (if you somehow forgot the key); there's even lockpicking competitions, apparently! In an ideal, more consumer-friendly world, DRM-circumvention would only be illegal if it's specifically done to commit piracy and it wasn't done on a product that you legally own.

If someone sells me a safe with $10,000 and somehow forgets the combination, that person has relinquished their ownership of said object to me, putting it at my mercy; as a result, there's no moral/legal compunction against using technical knowledge to determine the safe's combination to obtain the money inside; the only way I could find this being illegal is if I used the money to buy illicit substances or I was merely borrowing/lent said safe. If that person would later complain that I obtained the money (which I can use in any legal way I choose) through cracking the combination, too bad---they shouldn't have given me the safe to use. If I buy a jug of milk from a store, even though I technically don't "own" the copyright license or the brand, I do own the specific jug of milk, so after payment, the store can't dictate what brands of cereal I can use the milk for or the amount per day.

At least when it comes to the consumer side, copyright law (at least in the U.S.) can be a joke , especially in the realm of AI: a large company (such as Meta) can knowingly train their AI model on pirated books and get a slap on the wrist, but a regular person who pirates those same books are treated as more of a criminial.

I agree piracy isn't a moral ideal, but if I'm merely buying a LICENSE to access said content, why not either change the digital-purchase model to be more ownership-friendly or clearly and overtly indicate such up front? Why should the law-abiding consumer be treated to a glorified rental? Why should a company get to unilaterally dictate how I can or can't consume media that's supposed legally owned? Again, if I buy a jug of milk, I can use that milk on whatever food I want! How can Springer Books allow its users to download PDFs of purchased books but Amazon can't for Kindle?

Maybe I'm wrong for saying this, but at least with how it's currently implemented in relation to the consumer, even if it does give content distributors SOME degree of control, I'd argue that on the whole, DRM is ineffective at dissuading piracy in the long run (for example, especially if the AACS encryption on a Blu-ray apparently doesn't even allow the user to take a snapshot during playback or that PC Blu-ray playback requires hardware that was removed due to its security flaws). It may obviously dissuade less skilled or motivated individuals, but you'd be surprised with how patient diligent people can be (recall the allegory of the crow and the pitcher of water). Not calling for the outlawing of the technology, but merely for there being exceptions in the DMCA for DRM-circumvention that acknowledge that there are sincerely legitimate reasons for said circumvention.

TL;DR - While the goal of DRM is obviously to give content distributors a level of control over their products, even if it's technically legal and understandable, in terms of how it's currently implemented in relation to the consumer, the apparent end result (as you've admitted) is that the license holder benefits at the expense of the end-user who FUNDS them, since they can unilaterally dictate how said user can consume their legally purchased product in the privacy of their own home. The fact that this exists and that the DMCA prohibits any form of DRM circumvention (even for legitimate exceptions like personal use of legally-purchased material) is a farce. This situation around digital content (because DVDs and BDs are simply physical containers for binary code) is inferior to consumer rights that exist for wholly physical products (such as milk and hardware tools) in which the legal owner has a fuller control over private, personal use.

Plus, there are moments in which pirated/unlicensed versions of copyrighted media can provide a better service than those from official channels: look no further than Dragon Ball home-video releases!

At the cost of potentially sounding naive, if wartime can prove anything (e.g., the decoding of the German Enigma Code during WWII), with enough patience, knowledge, and diligence, any form of encryption/cipher/protection can be cracked. If a human mind created it, a human mind can circumvent it.

Regarding those hardware removals: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYUzOw3dqs&lc=UgyexDm4baYNcCHb9x14AaABAg.A_F95Q92CQ6A_JTNb1mbJH

[JoshuaHawthorne@2026]

To Blue_MiSfit (continued): As far as the necessity of security measures and/or DRM, I'd argue that localized video files stored on a disc and sold to an individual is contextually different from files hosted on a streaming service such as Netflix or Hulu. In the latter context, the user is reasonably expected to understand that they don't legally own the content they watch, it instead being streamed to them on a subscription basis (the equivalent of renting an item). In the former, the buying user would naturally assume that--as long as nothing illegal is done with the material--they're free to consume the media in whatever method they choose on the basic principles of ownership of said disc and the items within it--they may not own the license to redistribute the anime Bleach (for example), but they do own the physical item. In a sense, one could argue that DRM (in this case) arbitrarily and unnecessarily restricts what the "buyer" can or can't do with the content (I'm legally liable if I remove the enacted DRM for my personal and private use?). As far as the supposed necessity of DRM for the purposes of dissuading piracy, the relevant copyright owners (as one Good Old Games member stated) could simply outpace the pirates by providing a significantly better service than the pirates themselves. Stubborn pirates who don't want to pay for copyrighted content would've pirated it whether any DRM was present or absent. Again, as stated in my last post, piracy is certainly harmful, but treating one's legal buyers as potential criminals certainly isn't helping towards the goal of defeating piracy.

Ultimately, all I'm trying to convey is that--respectfully--of course DRM exists to give the relevant content creators/distributors control over their work, and of course the extent to which a given DRM scheme can be cracked/circumvented is based on the knowledge/diligence/skill of the individual or group, but that fundamentally doesn't change the fact that--in the bid to eradicate piracy (which, even if harmful, will never truly disappear)--the companies that employ unnecessarily restrictive DRM on their content has the unintended side-effect of giving pirated/unlicensed copies a superior experience than official/legal counterparts; after all, if I'm treated as a potential criminal, that removes the incentive for me not to enjoy a potentially better version of the product through alternative means. I acknowledge that piracy is harmful, but the current consumer model with respect to digital goods (including optical media) lends credence to piracy: if Lionsgate doesn't give me the reasonable option to make private copies of my supposedly legally-owned BD copy such that I could have the freedom to watch it through any device of my choosing, even if it's unfortunately illegal, I'll bypass the DRM so that I can; if Amazon forces me to read Ebooks on Kindle devices and software only, I'll either get a pirated version or circumvent the Ebook DRM myself if it means I get more control over something I supposedly own. Not ideal, but understandable. And even if I would be content with consuming the content the way the creators/distributors intended, at least the option would be available. That's my thesis of my response in a (second) nutshell.