DVDFab domains seized: here are some alternatives

Martin Brinkmann
Mar 11, 2014
Updated • Mar 11, 2014

When you try to access DVD Fab related domains today, you will notice that most of them are not reachable anymore. This is the consequence of a US court order ruling in favor of the AACS (Advanced Access Content System) consortium that includes companies such as Disney, Intel, Sony, Microsoft or IBM.

Effective immediately, most domains belonging to the company were seized, including dvdfab.com. In addition, hosting companies and social networking providers were ordered to stop servicing the company, and bank and payment providers were asked to freeze company funds.

The company has created several free and commercial products such as DVDFab HD Decrypter, to rip DVD and Blu-Ray movies, bypassing protection in the process.

It is interesting to note that the company did not only produce software to back up movie DVDs and Blu-Rays, but also other programs such as a Media Player to play movies on computer systems.

Additional information can be obtained on the Torrent Freak website.

Some software portals seem to have pulled most DVD Fab software already from their repositories, while you can still download them from others such as Softpedia or Major Geeks.

If you have DVDFab software installed, you can continue to use it just like before. If you are looking for software that helps you create back ups of DVDs or Blu-Ray movies, or rip them to drive to watch them on it, then you may find the following alternatives useful for that.

Disclaimer: Please note that circumventing copy protection may be illegal in your region or country. In some countries at the very least, you are allowed to make personal backups from DVD and Blu-Ray movies that you have purchased. Why that is not a given in all countries is a mystery to me.

DVDFab Alternatives

  • AnyDVD and AnyDVD HD -  Both programs are commercial, but can be used to remove restrictions and region codes from DVDs or Blu-Ray discs. Both programs can remove forced trailers, delays and other restrictions on top of that as well.
  • BitRipper - Can convert DVD movies to avi video files.
  • DVD43 - A free DVD decrypter that disables DVD copy protection so that you can use programs to rip or back up the DVD.
  • DVD Decrypter - Works just like DVD43, but with the difference that it can be used directly to make disk image backups of video DVDs.
  • DVD Ranger - A commercial application that can be used to copy DVD and Blu-Ray movies.
  • Easy Brake -
  • MakeMKV - A free program to rip DVD and Blu-Ray videos to the hard drive.
  • VidCoder - Another free DVD and Blu-Ray ripping software for Windows.
  • WinX Blu-Ray Decrypter - A commercial program that can decrypt and copy Blu-Ray movies.
  • WinX DVD Ripper Platinum - A commercial program that can rip videos from any DVD.

Did we miss an alternative? Let us know in the comment section below.


Tutorials & Tips

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. buggs said on June 2, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    GNU/Linux has a command line program that does the same, vobcopy as I recall, and it is freeware. The cat has been out of the bag for quite some time now, so to speak. I guess our big American corporations and their cronies just don’t get it. No more money for nothin’, and chicks for free. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way Disney, Intel, Sony, Microsoft or IBM. The rest of the real world refuses to wait on your feet dragging and hippie conniptions any longer.

  2. FRED said on April 19, 2014 at 11:28 pm

    Could someone tell me if DVD Cloner will do the same job as DVDFab

  3. DeFlanko said on April 18, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    The site is back up in china now:


  4. Dave said on March 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    as always great article. you are one of the few left true geeks.

  5. Flyer said on March 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    @ Gregg DesElms
    No offence mate but you have definitely too much time and no ideas how to spend it.
    Not always “my own point of view” means it is the only right point of view.
    Just my cents.
    Keep smiling bud and more trust in other people :)

    1. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 9:19 pm


      I was trying to see how many symbols I can go through. Oh well…

  6. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Sorry folks. I can’t help it. Especially since I’ve learned that he does this to several sites. Just too funny.

  7. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 3:24 pm


    1. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm


      MY RESPONSE: And your unprovoked reptition… what? Drives home the point, somehow?

      Are you having a breakdown or something? You’re okay, right? Now I’m becoming concerned.

      Gregg L. DesElms
      Napa, California USA
      gregg at greggdeselms dot com

      Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
      Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

      1. Andrew said on March 13, 2014 at 5:10 pm

        *Grabs popcorn*

        Don’t mind me, i’m just here for the show…

      2. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 5:06 pm

        LMFAO! Wow! Those folks are right. You do have 30 years of “keyboard diarrhea”.


        Feel sorry for this lady though:


        So you go around flooding a comment board with your keyboard diarrhea until eveybody leaves?

      3. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 5:06 pm


  8. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 8:33 am

    DANTE WROTE: (my apologies to the moderator. just wanted to see if those folks on line is right about him. just replying with a simple . )

    MY RESPONSE: It’s “are right,” not “is right.” You used the plural noun “folks,” and so the form of the verb “be” which precedes the adverb “right” must be the plural third-person present tense “are,” not the singular third-person present tense “is.” The tense of your verb must agree with your noun. You know, elementary- and middle-school grammar just couldn’t have been all that long ago for you. You’ve forgotten it, already?

    You also might want to bother to capitalize and punctuate. Just because you’re posting from a mobile device doesn’t mean you’re excused from the very same rules of writing to which we’re all subject, and by which we’re all bound…

    …er… I mean… that is, unless you don’t care how ignorant and uneducated you look.

    It’s also “online,” not “on line;” though, that said, your “on line” could very well be an innocent typo, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. We all make innocent typos.

    And please be sure you actually know what, trust me, you only think you know, there, Sparky. This ain’t my first rodeo; and you’re far from the first person who decided to pick a fight with me (that’s what you did, you know; to be clear, you started this, just in case you’ve forgotten) in a place like this, but then realized s/he didn’t possess the skills to hold-up his/her end of the conversation, and so resorted to the underhanded tactic of thinking s/he was researching me and finding something somewhere that would embarrass me; and then if you went ahead and posted, here, what you think you’ve found, you’d be far from the first person to assume that it would make me burst into tears and fall silent.

    I actually rather love it when that happens, because then when I both explain and document what it all really means, his/her humiliation is just so delicious. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m egging you on; baiting you; almost literally begging you to post it. Please don’t deprive me of my moment. You’ve set it all up so masterfully.

    So, please… go ahead: share with us all, here, what “those folks on line [sic] is [sic] right about” with regard to me.

    Seriously. Go ahead. Don’t hold back. Give it your best shot. I mean, what’s to lose, right? You’re here pseudonymously, anyway. Who cares if not-even-your-real-name-Dante is humiliated? Please share with us all, then… wait… how did you word it in your other post? Hold on… lemmee scroll up for a sec…

    [moments pass]

    …ah, yes, your: “Just spent time looking up your web history. OMG! Sorry dude. My mama told me never to make fun of some folks. It’s not nice.”

    “OMG?” “Dude?” What’re you… 12? But now I digress. Sorry

    Please share with us what it is from my “web history,” as you put it, that makes you think I’m like one of the “folks,” to use your word, whom you apparently believe ride the short bus, and so shouldn’t ever be, per your mama, ever made fun of. Oh, please, young and still-green Dante, share… so that everyone else may also enjoy.

    Cowards — bullies, too, come to think of it… as if there were a difference — like you always deal in innuendo, and can just never seem to directly say or write what they really mean. They can’t directly discuss or debate; and never quite know what to do with someone who hold them accountable for their drive-by derisions in places like this. And so they resort to the classic tactic of the cowardly: trying to dig-up dirt on their opponents. Republicans do it to Democrats instinctively, as the FOX NEWS CHANNEL so effectively models for them. Such as they — and you, if you continue down this cowardly road in life — are the reason why good people who can really get things done are afraid to run for political office: because anything from their past that some right-winged bible-thumper might be able to find and then twist into at least seeming evidence of amoral character will be proffered by cowards like you. And when your kind can’t find it, they just suggest that it’s there, and let everyone’s imaginations run wild…

    …exactly as you’ve cowardly here done.

    Well, now’s your chance to show a little spunk, and disabuse us all of our wrong-headed notions about you, young Dante. So, please… go ahead… share. You can do it. Put on your big boy pants, wipe your little snot nose, tuck-in your shirt, comb your hair, stand-up straight, and courageously share. You’ll feel better for it, I promise…

    …er… well… for a little while, anyway. But… you know… hey… for now, at least, please go ahead. Seriously, we’re all waiting. Bated breath, and all that. Tick, tock. Speak-up… we can’t hear you.

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    1. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 3:35 pm


      1. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 4:32 pm


        MY RESPONSE: What? Repeating it, but with an exclamation point somehow makes your pretending you don’t get it more clear?

        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
        Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    2. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 1:06 pm


      1. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm

        DANTE WROTE: ?

        MY RESPONSE: Like the child who gets caught doing something naughty; and then when called on it, s/he just looks up, with the biggest eyes possible, asking the most innocent possibe, “what?”

        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
        Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

  9. 4pcwhisperer said on March 13, 2014 at 6:30 am

    Blu-ray is now the industry’s voice and clearly the iron fist blocking user freedom to enjoy personal-use reformatting. We all have stories about wanting to use our paid-for Blu-ray discs on a more convenient media player (example an Android tablet or phone in my case).

    The industry wants me to pay for the Blu-ray disc, pay again to watch on my tablet and again to watch on my phone and if I want to watch again a Month later, pay them another time.

    Clearly the industry is out of control. The most powerful tool we have is our purchasing power. If we all picked a week and simply refused to buy any Blu-ray product the industry would feel that impact.

    If we all refused to buy any Blu-ray product the first week of every Month until the industry loosened the personal-use reformatting legal constraints, it would not take long for things to change,

    We have the power to fix this, We just don’t know it. Personally as long as DVDs are still being sold I am avoiding the Blu-ray discs just for that reason. I can easily make reformatted MP4s that work on Android tablets and the quality is perfectly acceptable.

    1. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 4:29 pm

      4PCWHISPERER WROTE: The industry wants me to pay for the Blu-ray disc, pay again to watch on my tablet and again to watch on my phone and if I want to watch again a Month later, pay them another time. Clearly the industry is out of control.

      MY RESPONSE: Agreed.

      The packagers of movies which contain both DVD and Blu-Ray discs in them are, it seems, trying to ameliorate the problem at least a bit; but your points are well taken. Once purchased, one should be able to make copies for one’s own use on one’s own devices. No question about it.

      If the media companies were sensitive to this, they’d include, on each DVD or Blu-Ray disc, accessible when inserted into a computer and read as a data disc (or even from the main video menu, when inserted into a computer optical drive, as opposed to a media center player), a program (in Windows, iOS, Android and Linux versions) which allowed the user to make those conversions/copies to various other formats; and at least one copy as backup of the original disc.

      I suspect that fewer people than the media companies think (but, still, far too many) would abuse it. Whether the number who would still abuse it would actually be enough to cause the media companies the kinds of losses they fear is another question. Based on how many routinely engage in both bit torrenting movies, and distributing them on UseNet, I worry that perhaps the numbers would remain high. That said, I think at least part of the allure of illegal distribution via bit torrent and UseNet is the whole “I’m being bad and getting away with it” thing. I fear, though, that there are not enough of those doing it who suffer from that character flaw to give media companies any real relief.

      I’ll say this, though: In my pushing 40 years as an IT professional, I’ve obviously seen every kind of copy protection scheme imaginable; and the software companies that, in the end, just gave-up and did minimal and basic serial numbering or using of keys, but without any other extraordinary protections, ended-up not really losing very much money… certainly not enough to warrant the higher-than-their-actual-losses cost of all that vigilance; and their sales revenues continued to rise at normal rates. Most of them, in fact, ended-up looking back on when, for example, they implemented dongles and all manner of other costly methodologies, and they wondered what they were thinking.

      The reason for unsupported (other than in forums) freeware (or open-source) “community editions” of various kinds of software out there is borne, largely, out of software companies realizing that it’s easier, cheaper and faster to just give away an unsupported version, and then charge those who are willing to pay for the supported (and usually feature-enhanced) versions, and just call it a day.

      The old saying is that locks on doors (in homes, offices, businesses, etc.) are really only for honest people; people who will, when they turn the doorknob, see that the place is locked and just accept that and move on. That’s what honest people do. Criminals, on the other hand, are going to get in, no matter what; they’re not honest people. Locks, then, are only for honest people.

      It’s much the same way with media and software: Honest people — which is the (sometimes surprisingly, to we who are cynical) vast majority — will tend to do the right thing. Dishonest ones — which (sometimes equally surprisingly, to we who are cynical) are the vast minority — will not. Just as the loss to any of us, in life, because of that, is small, so, too, is the loss to any one media or software company because of piracy.

      While piracy is unassailably and facially wrong, with there being no excuse for it, a minimally-rigorous anti-piracy effort on the part of software and media companies — the digital equivalent of bothering to at least put a lock on the door, and then actually using it — is really all that’s necessary. If software and media companies would simply do that, and stop worrying and spending beyond that, I believe their profits would be the same as they are now; that all the shakers and movers in said companies would continue to become filthy rich and godawful people; and that their revenues would rise at normal rates such that the piracy isn’t really even noticed, to speak of… in part, because the piracy losses are actually, in the master scheme of things, surprisingly small.

      They’re not insignificant or trivial losses, mind you; but they’re probably not worth all the time, money and energy being invested in anti-piracy efforts. I suspect that if most big media and/or software companies were to donate even only 10% of the value, in real dollars, of what they invest in anti-piracy efforts in terms of time, energy, worry and cash to the problem of homelessness, for example, then there would be in every city a shelter capable of handling all of said city’s homeless…

      …possibly even, beyond that, with enough money to help said shelters lift people up out of poverty and homelessness with job training, psycological/medical help, legal help, rapid-rehousing, etc.

      But, then again, I’m a dreamer like that. Silly me.

      Gregg L. DesElms
      Napa, California USA
      gregg at greggdeselms dot com

      Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
      Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

  10. Dante said on March 13, 2014 at 2:27 am


    (my apologies to the moderator. just wanted to see if those folks on line is right about him. just replying with a simple . )

  11. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 1:32 am

    DANTE WROTE: It’s not nice to bomb a comment section with excessively long ramblings that visually drowns out the discussion. It just drives the folks away from trying to find the nuggets of info from posters because they have to excessively scroll through gibberish. Good thing that dvdfab.cn link was posted before you had a chance to bury it.

    MY RESPONSE: The phrase “bombing a comment section” refers to the act of intentionally posting just to post; for posting’s sake, only; to clutter it all up with basically nothingness. My postings, here, are real content; well-thought-out, well-presented, and worthy of reading. That you don’t *LIKE* the content (actually, more accurately, that it’s overwhelming your tweet-sized abilities), and so are taking pot-shots at it and me for it, speaks more — volumes, in fact — about you than it does me. I’m content, in any case, to let the reader decide which of us is more credible, and/or worth reading. It is also telling, indeed, that all it takes are worthy words in sufficient quantity to block your ability to digest what’s on the page for entirely visual reasons. That, almost more than anything else, is telling, indeed.

    As far as may allegedly “burying” DVDFab’s new URL (as if that were even possible in this format), you’re also proving to be a very uncareful reader. Scan back through the postings, here. I posted the DVDFab’s .JP (Japanese ccTLD) domain name early-on, here; and with no comment about it… in other words, just to make sure everyone knew what it was.

    And here’s some further evidence of that you’re an uncareful reader: My anger with DVDFab is self-evidently, here, *NOT* so much because of its inherent lawlessness for being the tool-of-choice for illegal DVD rippers and media content distributors; and, in fact, I tend to sorta’ kinda’ almost agree with the other poster, here, who wrote that blaming DVDFab is a little like blaming the paper manufacturer. (You probably uncarefully missed that one, too.)

    My anger with DVDFab is because its marginal propensity for lawlessness in one area has proven to influence its lawfulness (or, more accurately, its lack thereof) in other areas: most specifically, with regard to the shifty way that DVDFab has always done business, what with its selling what the buyer thought woudl be a “lifetime” license on something which later gets discontinued, and so said lifetime license becomes worthless because the discontinued thing doesn’t get updated anymore and so even though the lifetime license means that the user gets to use it for a lifetime, the nature of what DVDFab software does requires that it be updated often; and so when the discontinued software gets renamed and repacked into something else, for which the user who had paid for the allegeldy-lifetime license must then also pay, said user got flat-out ripped-off. There’s not an consumer protection division of a state attorney general’s office in the US that wouldn’t go after it for those awful games that DVDFab plays,

    DVDFab has also long been known for misleadingly-wording — often through pure and unadulterated obfuscation and intentional ambiguity — its marketing copy; using phrases like “the term of the license period” in the same sentence as “lifetime license”, and other such twists of language which inevitably end-up harming the consumer.

    My final reason for being angry with DVDFab, though — the reason that *REALLY* frosts me — is its abject disrespect for the rule of law as evidenced by its unwillingness to participates in its process. DVDFab wants to do business in the US, availing itself of domains names controlled by the US, and banking and credit card merchant systems controlled by the US…

    …yet it believes that it need not be governed by its laws and judicial system. Back to the whole “government of laws and not men” thing, which you clearly didn’t bother to read; which only somone of your ilk would call “gibberish.” Again, with it speaking more volumes about you than me.

    You’re obviously young; part of a generation of multi-taskers who don’t realize that multi-tasking is actually a myth; and results in misguided youth who are all about breadth and no depth, and think that’s normal; youngsters suffering from an acquired kind of attention deficit disorder form it, resutling in them believing that pretty much anything longer than a 140-character text or tweet is “TLDR” (“too long, didn’t read,” for those not familiar with the initialism). Such as you want all your information in sound and/or audio/visual bites; you think that such as the television-on-newsprint USA Today is actually a newspaper; or that that Daily Show is actually news. Having to read a New Yorker Magazone (or Chicago Reader) lenght feature article would just about *KILL* the likes of you.

    I have no sympathy, at all, for those who make the TLDR argument. In fact, the more they make it, the more I like to write. Life’s more complex than attention-deficited youngsters like apparently you realize… or can even BEGIN, apparently, to grasp. Get a clue…

    …or such as I will always be able to easily humiliate such as you in places like this, if for no other reason than that you’ve been raised to appreciate brevity to the point that you can’t really even read and comprehend. Er… well… that and that you’re a product of the current state of America’s godawful educational system.

    Get, again, a clue. I’d suggest more, but a clue seems the most for which I can hope from you.

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

  12. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    DANTE WROTE: ROFLMAO! You really should not be impersonating the guy this way. It’s FUNNY, but it’s not nice to impersonate people to make them look like a dense baffoon. This is the one thing that is bad about anonymous posts – impersonations.

    MY RESPONSE: Who’s being anonymous, here, Dante? You, using the mere handle “Dante;” so there’s no way to know who you really are? Or me, GREGG L. DesELMS, who is here using his REAL name in REAL brick-and-mortar life; who’s provably the only “Gregg L. DesElms” or “Gregg DesElms” on the planet, and whose identity and participation, here, is easily verifiable?

    It’s easy to call people things like a “dense baffoon” from the safety (and also the “peanut gallery”) of anonymity, there, Dante. How ’bout you man-up and use your real name, eh? Or could we now even trust whatever you ended-up claiming was your real name (that is, if you were man enough to offer it) since you’ve here betrayed, by your accusation and its indication of your marginal propensity toward projection onto others your own impulses, that it would likely be an impersonation?

    Hmm? That’s okay; I’ll wait while you re-read it a few times and figure out what it means.

    People with little of value to say, always tend to say it…

    …preceded, in this case, by an immature Internet textese initialism that only the anonymous (or, more accurately, pseudonymous) Dante and his likes think is cool.

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    1. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm

      Whoa! You mean that really was you? Or are you pulling our legs?

      Just spent time looking up your web history. OMG! Sorry dude. My mama told me never to make fun of some folks. It’s not nice.

      1. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 11:57 pm

        P.S. It’s not nice to bomb a comment section with excessively long ramblings that visually drowns out the discussion. It just drives the folks away from trying to find the nuggets of info from posters because they have to excessively scroll through gibberish.

        Good thing that dvdfab.cn link was posted before you had a chance to bury it.

  13. Jim Hillier said on March 12, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    My question is this; there are literally a dozen or more programs which function in the same or similar manner as the DVDFab software, and all with exactly the same claims of circumventing protection. Why then has DVDFab been singled out?

    If I am reading the situation correctly; these sites have been closed down pursuant to a US court order claiming that the software is in violation of US laws:

    “Under U.S. law it’s forbidden to distribute software with the primary intention of circumventing copyright protection”

    Why this should impact on the rest of the world is beyond me. Is the US claiming that its laws are Globally applicable? Surely if US law is the benchmark, then the effects of such court orders should be restricted to the US?

    1. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 11:35 pm

      They target DVDFab because it’s the most popular one out there – it’s easy to use, full featured and cracks anything. AnyDVD is not as easy to use nor does it quickly crack the latest encryption.

      And yes, the U.S. can shut down any company in the world by simply pulling its credit card processing capabilities. It all goes through the U.S. Even Chinese banks would suffer if the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank stops their financial transactions.

    2. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 10:52 pm

      JIM HILLIER WROTE: there are literally a dozen or more programs which function in the same or similar manner as the DVDFab software, and all with exactly the same claims of circumventing protection. Why then has DVDFab been singled out?

      MY RESPONSE: Yes, many similar software utilities claim to do what DVDFab does; however, if you research them, you’ll find that many of them are no longer being developed, yet are still freely available because they nevertheless still work well on most or all copy protection schemes that existed up to the moment that their development ceased; which schemes tend to be those most ofen used, even now. Such utilities as DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, DVD43, RatDVD, RipIt4Me, and SmartRipper are examples of that. They still work on most DVDs (and even some Blu-Ray discs), but they fall on their faces when trying to decrypt the very latest stuff.

      DVDFab’s claim to fame is that it’s constantly being updated with the latest encryption schemes known out there. Seriously: I’ve seen DVDFab come out with a scheme for end-running decryption algorithms so new that the ink on the articles in the motion picture industry trade rags about them weren’t even dry yet. Not many others (with the possible exception of maybe the “AnyDVD” folks; whom I predict will be sued next, by the way) have been that aggressive. Everyone in the motion picture industry has long known that DVDFab was the decryption software maker to bring down; and that if they could do it, and then begin encrypting with something very new, then just maybe, for at least a little while, the films couldn’t so easily be ripped from their DVDs and, especially, Blu-Ray discs.

      JIM HILLIER WROTE: Why this should impact on the rest of the world is beyond me. Is the US claiming that its laws are Globally applicable? Surely if US law is the benchmark, then the effects of such court orders should be restricted to the US?

      MY RESPONSE: All domain name registrars are controlled by ICANN, which is subject to US law; and the US-based gTLD domain name both controllers and ICANN-approved registrars are particularly subject to US law and court orders. The domains that were disabled were largely gTLD domains, controlled by US companies. And so they must honor a US federal court order, or their owners can be cited for Contempt of Court and, if said owners failed to appear on a summons for it, then they could be fitted with a pair of handcuffs and literally dragged into court by a US Marshal, stopping by the federal lock-up on the way; and then returning thereto after Court to serve-out their 30-day-or-longer sentences for said Contempt of Court. In the US, you either respect the legal system, or the legal system will *MAKE* you do it… or at least make you go through all the motions you’d go through if you did.

      The new domains that DVDFab is now using are ccTLD domains, not gTLD ones. Yes, such ccTLD domains are still under the control of ICANN, but said control is complicated by the fact that each ccTLD is the property of a sovereign nation; and so whether said nation and those in it who control said nation’s ccTLD need abide by a US federal district court order can become an International incident. Yes, ICANN could disable the country’s ccTLD’s start-of-authority (SOA) and effectively stop its ability to work in the global DNS system, but… yikes! Were I the head honcho at ICANN, I’d think long and hard before pulling a stunt like that! It all becomes, then, complicated… and even more so when the country that owns the ccTLD is somebody as big as China. Oh, boy. Yeah… no, we won’t see either the .CN or .JP ccTLDs that DVDFab is now using be turned-off anytime soon.

      Certainly both VISA and MasterCard are US-based, and so would be forced to abide by the federal district court’s order. Any US banks (or even non-US ones which nevertheless had a bank on US property; or dealt with the US Federal Reserve) would also have to honor the federal district court’s order.

      Additionally, the US has International reciprocity and extradition agreements with a great many countries; and in said countries, a US federal district court order would be honored, indeed. Even if China, were the US State Department willing to step-up and fight this battle, the US federal district court’s order could be enforced…

      …and, trust me, Mr. Shen doesn’t want the Chinese authorities enforcing any court orders — either China’s or the US’s — against him. At least the US would just fine him and if he were in contempt, maybe imprison him for a little while; all the time caring for him and his health and well-being; and ensuring that he was none-the-worse for wear when he got out. In China, they just disappear people.

      Fortunately for him, neither the US State Department is willing to step-up, nor is China willing to agree to help. DVDFab effectively disrupted the revenues of a high-profile and highly-financially-successful US industry…

      …which is precisely what the Chinese government likes. Mr. Shen might be getting a medal soon.

      In any case, the bottom line is that with respect to your “then the effects of such court orders should be restricted to the US,” they are, at least facially. However, as a practical matter, there are ways to get those outside the US to honor a US federal district court order; to leverage other kinds of both business and governmental relationships to cause those outside the US to comply.

      Remove any globally-operating company’s ability to do business either in or with the US, or to utilize its services (like banking, for example; and credit card processing), and you’ve hurt said company, indeed.

      Mr. Shen and his pride are causing him to act, for the moment, like this is all no big deal. But just watch: DVDFab’s products will soon re-emerge under an entirely new company, with entirely new names…

      …at which point the next round in such as AACS’s game of wack-a-mole will begin, anew.

      Just look at AACS’s founders: Disney, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Warner Bros., IBM, Toshiba and Sony. It has very deep pockets with which to fund lawsuits.

      Very deep, indeed.

      Gregg L. DesElms
      Napa, California USA
      gregg at greggdeselms dot com

      Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
      Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

      1. Jim Hillier said on March 13, 2014 at 11:28 pm

        GREGG DESELMS WROTE: “Yes, many similar software utilities claim to do what DVDFab does; however, if you research them, you’ll find that many of them are no longer being developed”

        Nonsense; here is just a small selection of those which are actively developed and updated:

        WinX DVD Ripper: “It can remove DVD CSS, UOP, RCE, region code and even Sony ARccOS”
        Magic DVD Ripper: “Remove all the restrictions of DVD (CSS, Region, RCE, Sony ARccOS, PuppetLock)”
        DVD Cloner: “Removes all known DVD protections for you to bring the cinema home”
        AnyDVD: “Removes restrictions and region code from DVDs”
        MacX DVD Ripper: “removing DVD CSS, region code, RCE, Sony ArccOS, UOPs, Disney, etc”
        Open DVD Ripper 3: “remove CSS-encrypted, Region-protected and Sony ARCCOS protections from DVD”
        Aimersoft DVD Ripper: “remove all the restrictions of DVD, like CSS, Region, RCE, Sony ARccOS and PuppetLock”

        *All quotes (in parenthesis) have been extracted directly from the vendors’ sites.

        I’ll stop there, although many more could be added to the list.

        With respect to your response re US laws impacting globally: quite frankly I haven’t the patience to completely read through it all. All I know is; I am in Australia, if the US takes down a site because of owner/admin infractions relating to US laws, then I can longer access that site nor download software from that site… regardless of whether that same law applies in my country or not.

  14. Pat said on March 12, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Damn, I JUST renewed my subscription too. Now what? MakeMKV makes good files but large and not 3D.

    1. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 11:31 pm

      Their dvdfab.cn site is up. They’re a Chinese company.

      1. DTECH said on March 14, 2014 at 2:28 am

        WOW DVDFAB has greater freedom in China then in the US imagine that . Like, the US has the best legal system and judges money can buy. So we pass laws to protect a broken DRM system.

  15. Yronnen said on March 12, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Not to compare this to people’s lives, but some groups say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s a good enough excuse to allow guns.

    Isn’t the same logic applies to video ripping tools? They could be used for creating torrents, but they could be for fair use as well.

    Besides, if one really wants to rip a movie and share it, one will find a way even without dvdfab.

  16. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Well, everyone likes to get into places like this and lament such as what’s happened to DVDFab, today; and they make the classic “but I just want to back-up my own copies of stuff I’ve purchased” argument…

    …but you, me and God all known that DVDFab software is typically — most-often, I’d say — used for purposes of ripping the DVD or Blu-Ray disc so that the unencryped and compressed-to-around-700MB movie may be distributed via the bit torrent or UseNet systems.

    I’m not going to get into, in this post, whether that’s an inherently good or bad thing (though if it helps to know that I’m very big on the ownership rights and control afforded by copyright and trademarks; though, that said, I am also a huge foe of abusers of it who harrass even those engaging in lawful fair use, then I’ll at least write that, here)…

    …but in the name of not allowing anyone here to pee on anyone’s leg and then tell them it’s raining, I just wanted to make sure that the REAL issues of this whole business are present, here, alongside the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Like back in the days of reel-to-reel and cassette tapes (that was the media in my day), when all of this whole business of making copies of things for one’s own use got well legally settled, the whole business, today, of making copies for one’s own use of one’s own purchased digital media should be equally treated. The problem is that the ethically-challenged abuse the privileg. And so we end-up with messes like this.

    Rather than whining about what this all means for people who allegedly just want to make backups of their own stuff for their own use…

    …address the elephant in the room: that tools such as those proffered by DVDFab, and the other alternatives listed here, are routinely used to break the law and deprive rightful owners of copyrighted and trademarked property of certain (not all, mind you… not even most; but at least certain) profits which they, like it or not, deserve. They created it, and so they have the right to charge for it; and to control it; and to keep people from seeing it and/or hearing it unless said people pay by one means or another.

    And please spare me the arguments: I’ve heard them all. I subscribe to, and daily read, Mike Masnick’s TechDirt blog. I get it. And I, more often than not, agree with what he writes, I should add.

    None of that changes, however, the most basic overarching concept of that people who create things have moral, ethical and lawful ownership rights to it; and part and parcel of said rights is the ability to effectively (that’s the operative word) control the creation — and to charge for it, or not — and no arguments that begin with the words either “but” or “however” will change that.

    Ripping a DVD or Blu-Ray disc containing copyrighted material — even one that someone lawfully purchases from authorized channels — and then distributing an either compressed or uncompressed (but nevertheless decrypted) copy of it to others who did *NOT* pay for it, without the express written consent of the copyright holder (either as a one-off consent, or in the form of a type of copyright which spells-out precisely how it can be distrubed (then is done pursuant thereto)) is, first and foremost, just play inherently, morally and ethically wrong; and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that. Period. It’s an unassailable posit.

    The illegality of it is actually secondary, in a sense. Integrity means doing the right thing, even when no one’s looking. Effectively stealing another’s work product for which s/he expected to be paid, no matter the means, method or reason, is not right. Period.

    Yes, everyone should be able to backup their own DVDs and Blu-Ray discs (and CDs, too). There’s nothing worse than going to use one and having it, because of its having been so used, over time (or, worse, mistreated and/or just plain not-properly-cared-for), not work; and so, then, having to use something like IsoBuster to try to recover it. I get that; and so, yes, one should be able to make a backup copy for his/her own use, just like the courts ruled, years and years ago, we could do with vinyl LPs and reel-to-reel and cassette tapes.

    But that’s not how such as DVDFab is typically used, and everyone here knows that. Don’t kid a kidder.

    Resolve *THAT* problem, everyone, and there would likely be no lawsuits and Court rulings such as what shut-down the DVDFab websites (which, of course, still exist in their Japanese and Chinese versions, in English, and so nothing, really, has happened at all, if you think about it; just go get the software from *THOSE* sites, now, instead).

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    1. RobD381 said on March 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm

      It must be hard to be a glass half full kinda guy. Everyone’s cheating, and I know it because I do too kinda guy. Well, some of us don’t cheat, aren’t perfect, but not the awful image you create. For years I bought VHS tapes and when they died I had to buy another. Now I buy DVD’s, copy them, and put them up in case the copy dies or my dog eats it. No big deal. Last time I went to a movie, it cost me $30 for the privilege of drinking one pop, eating one popcorn and sitting stuck to the floor, with a damaged screen (by pop stains) view of a movie after watching 20 minutes (not kidding, I timed it) of commercials then seeing 2 one minute previews (remember when they were 3 minutes always? and then, ready to leave, a movie misrepresented by Hollywood as a “comedy” (Wolf of Wall Street) only to walk out on it 30 minutes later. THEN I went to a video store, rented a movie for $5, made myself a pop and popcorn and watched a movie I knew was going to be good on my TV. It was good enough I went the next day and bought it and made a copy which lasted about a year and then made another. THIS is reality, not the mole in the dark dank basement busily making copies of movies and immediately distributing them to everyone everywhere (for free, by the way, on torrents, etc.) Where is the great conspiracy? It’s in every Asian country that entrepreneurs copy, make a cover and then sell them for $5 overseas. The MPAA is a gangster group that won’t work on taking these people down but buy off Congress to abuse Americans.

    2. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 7:51 pm

      == ADDENDUM ==

      Let me add two other things to my previous posting (the long and derided-by-@Dante one, I mean)…

      FIRST, in a sense, it coudn’t have happened to a nicer guy… er… I mean, in this case, company, as the old saying goes. For those for whom English is a second language, here, that American English idiom (“it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy”) is sarcasm, meaning, in essence, that whatever bad thing happened happened to a not-particularly-nice person, and so, in the end, it was good that it happened to him/her (in a sort of Karmic sense), even if whatever happened to him/her wasn’t actually deserved.

      I’m saying that about DVDFab, here, but not for the obvious reason of its having made software which it knew, full well, was going to be used for illegality (and so that makes what happened to the company in Court well-deserved, regardless). My previous post, to which this is an addendum, kinda’ covered that, already. Rather, my reason for a bit of schadenfreuda, here, is because in addition to DVDFab’s maker (Fentao Software) so wantonly engaging in the violation of US (and also many other countries’) copyright laws, it also routinely scammed people by doing things like selling lifetime licenses to software; and then later just repackaging/renaming the software (while claiming to discontinue the old version of it) so that the allegely-“lifetime” licenses would be to something that no longer existed, so that the company could then charge everyone again. Purchased DVDFab software is also notorious for whatever is its license mysteriously becoming invalid before said license’s period has expired; and then when Fentao Software is contacted about it, it conveniently can’t find a record of the purchase.

      If any other software maker engaged in such both outrageous and egregious behavior, there isn’t a person here who wouldn’t be up-in-arms about it. Not one. But because DVDFab is at the vanguard of the whole bit torrent and UseNet illegal distribution-of-copyrighted-content world, everyone is willing to forgive its disingenuousness.

      SECOND — and this one *REALLY frosts me — according to he Torrent Freak article: “To stop the Chinese-based DVDFab from distributing its software in public, AACS moved for a preliminary injunction. After DVDFab failed to respond in court the request was granted by New York Federal Judge Vernon Broderick. TF has obtained a copy of the order.”

      So, right *THERE*, then, is the *REAL* problem: Fengtao Software didn’t even have enough respect for the law and the system to even respond to AACS’s complaint, or to participate in its adjudication. That is the very definition of lawlessness; it’s the civil equivalent of a person not showing-up for Court on a criminal charge… something for which judges both routinely and rightly issue arrest warrants, and hand-out jail sentences. Without a working legal system, life is chaos. In the US, at least, the law must trump what individuals or even companies think they have a right to do, but which is contrary to either law or public policy or both.

      If the argument of that such as DVDFab is for personal use just to back-up one’s own purchased media really holds the water that everyone claims, then Fengtao should have retained US counsel, and responded to the complaint, and participated in pre-trial discovery and all that naturally attends it, and prepared its case, and then argued it in Court with honor and conviction, and then let the system do its job. Everyone loves to hate America and such as its, yes, *VERY* flawed legal system; but the loudest complainers also secretly have visa applications. The US’s legal system, as the old saying goes, is the worst on the planet…

      …that is, except for all the others. And the lynchpin of that system is, as John Adams is famously quoted as having written in his 7th “Novanglus” letter, published in the Boston Gazette in 1774, that ours is “a government of laws and not men” (a not-new-even-then sentiment expressed in various forms even by Voltaire; and, long before him, even the ancient Greeks about their early experiments in democracy).

      Those who flaunt that system, as Fengtao Software did in courtroom 518 of the United States District Court for the Southern Federal District of New York in its case number 14-CV-1112, “Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) v Lanny Shen, dba DVDFab and Fengtao Software, et al.,” deserve exactly what they get. By not even bothering to respond to the case (which, in and of itself, evidences profound contempt for both the Court and the US legal system) when filed, Fengtao Software (aka “DVDFab Group” in the lawsuit) defaulted…

      …and so AACS’s getting precisely the injunction it wanted was a no-brainer: like shooting fish in a barrel. Even China has a working (even if inherently profoundly stilted and unfair) legal system that routinely deals with copyright and other intellectual property issues. There’s not a chance in the world, then, that Fengtao Software didn’t understand what it needed to do in order to fight for its side of the case in the US’s Federal District of Southern New York; and if its defense was a worthy one, it would have done so. But, of course, what Fengtao did isn’t defensible, and so that’s, no doubt, part of why it didn’t respond.

      Another reason could have been that Fengtao wrongly assumed that the US’s legal system was as unfair as is China’s. A lot of Chinese are under that misimpression because such governmental control and unfairness is all they know. Fengtao likely also couldn’t afford the legal defense; although if it really and truly understood its place in the movement to freely copy things, and was really and truly an activist in that world, then it would have known that there are several organizations in the US that might have joined it in its defense. If Fentao had simply picked-up the phone and called TechDirt’s Mike Masnick, for example, he could have steered the company onto no shortage of others in the US who would have been interested in thwarting AACS in any way possible.

      But, nnnoooooo… Fengtao couldn’t have been bothered…

      …thereby making a profound mockery of the Torrent Freak article’s “[t]he Chinese software vendor is not giving up easily…”

      Yes it is. It already has, in fact. What a ridiculous thing to write. By not even responding to the case — by not even timely filing a response to the complaint after it was lawfully both filed and served by the plaintiff upon the defendant — Fengtao gave-up that instant. Responding to a complex intellectual property case is no small fete; something which may not be adequately prepared in the usually-only-five-days that one typically has to respond to a lawsuit. However, the Court allows a simple “appearance” response which basically blanket denies all allegations, and then promises that once counsel has been retained, a proper proper response will be timely filed. Such a response can almost be handwritten on a napkin by a kindergartener, and the Clerk of the Court must accept it; and by so doing, Fengtao could have avoided default and mounted a real defense.

      So the Chinese company has not — not by a longshot — not given up. It already gave-up in the only lawful place there was to fight. Anything else it does contrary to the Court’s order is yet more of its lawlessness.

      Of course, lawbreakers never grasp any of this. It’s part of their sociopathic mindset; it’s part of what makes them lawbreakers. They don’t get the notion of integrity; they don’t get the whole “laws and not men” thing. They’re just lawbreakers…

      …no different than some punk who robs a convenience store. Not one bit different.

      The Torrent Freak article closed with: “In any case, AACS and the movie industry will be encouraged by this broad injunction, and it wouldn’t be a big surprise if we see this strategy being repeated against other piracy-related targets in the near future.”

      No it won’t. Get a clue. Bother to learn how the legal system, and precedent works. Fengtao defaulted. This isn’t a precedent. The plaintiff AACS got such a “broad injunction” because the defendant Fengtao didn’t make an appearance in the case, or mount a defense, and so wasn’t there to make motions that reigned-in the language of the injunction. That’s what HAPPENS when a defendant defaults: the plaintiff gets exactly what it wants unless whatever it is is just so facially contrary to both law and public policy that even the judge can’t allow it. That’s how it *WORKS*, for the loveofgod.

      But that’s only a precendent if AACS believes that the mere act and intimidation of suing is a strategy unto itself; a strategy which gambles on that the defendant will just not even bother to respond and allow a default judgement like Fentao did. Such as that is highly unlikely in most cases. None of it will be a precedent until and unless a case like this is properly adjudicated, and *THEN* a broad injunction is ordered. But that didn’t happen in this case.

      Torrent Freak is notorious for not understanding such things. It wrote, for example: “Besides the domain names, DVDFab’s hosting providers are also ordered to stop servicing the company, as are other online services including Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Whether AACS has asked for the closure of DVDFab’s social media accounts is unclear, as they remain active for now.”

      To that, I respond: What’s in the order, idiot? You got a copy of it, and even published it on Scribd, and linked to it from your article. What does it say? Does it *SAY* that DVDFab’s social media accounts should be closed? Is that what the judge orddered? Now that an order has been issued, it matters, not, what the plaintiff “asked for.” All that matters is the precise language of the order…

      …and I don’t mean the prepared one that the plaintiff filed on March 4th in the hope of getting the judge to sign it. I mean the one signed yesterday (March 11th) which bears the judge’s signature and the Court’s “Filed” stamp. Whatever’s on that is all that matters. And, trust me, it’s specific. Ambiguous orders are prima facie enforceable; and are easily overturned by a higher Court…

      …er… oh… wait… by not appearing in the matter, Fengtao’s not even allowed to *ASK* a higher court to reverse Judge Brokerick’s order! See what happens when you flaunt the US legal system?

      I’m sorry, but Larry Shen, dba DVDFab and/or Fengtao Software is getting precisely what he deserves.


      Gregg L. DesElms
      Napa, California USA
      gregg at greggdeselms dot com

      Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
      Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

      1. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 9:00 pm


        You really should not be impersonating the guy this way. It’s FUNNY, but it’s not nice to impersonate people to make them look like a dense baffoon. This is the one thing that is bad about anonymous posts – impersonations.

    3. Dante said on March 12, 2014 at 6:36 pm

      I personally use it to rip copies of MY dvds to MY phone to watch when I’m traveling. Or should I ramble on for a thousand words or so because this concept is not convoluted enough?

      1. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 7:56 pm

        If you own it, then you should get to rip it to formats suitable for other devices…

        …similar to how the Courts ruled regarding taping vinyl LPs years ago.

        It is a simple concept, indeed; and one with which I agree. Thousands of words are not necessary.

        Thanks for the uncalled-for derision.

        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
        Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    4. Martin Brinkmann said on March 12, 2014 at 6:20 pm

      I’m sorry but I highly doubt that the main purpose of these programs is to rip movies to put them on file sharing sites. We would see thousands of rips for each movie in that case, which is simply not the case.

      While I won’t argue that the software can be used for that, the main purpose in my opinion is to rip it so that you can put it on other devices that you own. And yes, ripping includes changing the resolution or quality to save space.

      1. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 9:49 pm

        MARTIN BRINKMANN WROTE: I’m sorry but I highly doubt that the main purpose of these programs is to rip movies to put them on file sharing sites. We would see thousands of rips for each movie in that case, which is simply not the case.

        MY RESPONSE: C’mon, Martin. You know I luv ya’, but ya’ gotta’ be kiddin’, right? You know how this works. It’s not the number of rips that matter. The first guy to rip is what everyone initially gloms onto, and so what matters is not so much that that’s only one rip, but that something like 100,000 people or more are seeding/leeching it. Then add another 300 or 400 rips that inevitably subsequently show-up, each with from as few as one to as many as 100,000 seeders/leechers…

        …and the next thing you know, there’s something like a million people around the globe who are participating in the bit-torrent system for just that one film. Don’t believe me? Download the freeware version of the “Bit Che” utlity. Then update its scripts; and then search for just what Rolling says are the top five movies of 2013:

        1) 12 Years a Slave
        2) Gravity
        3) The Wolf of Wall Street
        4) Before Midnight
        5) Her

        Lookup, in Bit Che, just those. I’ll do the first one: “12 Years a Slave”

        In my copy of Bit Che, the top-seeded/leeched rip has, as of this writing (and it changes, by the minute), 94,458 seeders, and 36,681 leechers: that’s 131,139 people stealing/distributing just that one rip.

        Adding-up the numbers from just the first ten rips yields 309,020 seeders, and 160,339 leechers; or a total of 469,359 seeders/leechers. Of course, the number of seeders/leechers goes down with each rip (if you sort by seeders), and so one may not easily calculate totals across all 392 (at this writing) rips. However, based on the totals from just the first ten rips, plus the fact that it doesn’t drop to only around 1000 seeders for any given rip ’til the almost 60th rip (and down to just 1 seeder ’til around the 340th (out of 394) rip(s), I think it’s fair to say that *WELL* over a million seeders/leechers, globally, are involved in bit-torrenting just that one film. Of course since some seeders/leechers do more than one rip of a given film (though, as it turns out, that’s not as common as once thought; people, we now know, tend to find one good rip of a given film, and then seed/leech only it), that number is diminished at least a tiny bit; but we’re still talkin’ *WELL* over a million.

        Based on a $10 movie ticket price; and 75% of said price going to the movie maker, and 25% to the theater during the first four weeks of the film’s run; then if only 5% of those “well over a million” had gone to see the film in a theater during the first four weeks (instead of bit-torrenting it), then that loss would represent from 5% to 15% of a typical US motion picture’s original make-budget; and if another 5% of that “well over a million” went to the theater (instead of bit-torrenting the film) during the 5th or successive weeks of the film’s run (when the split between the theater and the movie maker usually goes to around 50%/50%), the revenue loss due to bit-torrent could rise to as much as 25% of the film’s original make-budget. And none of that takes into consideration bit-torrent’s revenue loss from the later sales of DVD and Blu-Ray.

        Worse, those are just the guesstimated numbers from only the bit torrent system, which most people now know not to even use, anymore, because of the whole “six strikes” thing that most of the big DSL and cable-modem providers are willing to enforce. Most people have now gone over to UseNet, where it’s harder for them to get caught. I haven’t checked for there, yet, “12 Years a Slave”; but I’m guessing the numbers of participants, there, is similar; and so the lost revenues for the movie companies from UseNet activity is similar.

        I’ve also not factored into any of the above the losses to the theaters, not all of which are parts of big national chains. Many of them are just mom-and-pop operations, struggling to make it, just like anyone else. That said, when a theater charges six bucks for an 80-cent box of candy, it’s difficult, I realize, to be very sympathetic.

        It’s also difficult, I realize, for the public to be very sympathetic about the motion picture companies’ losses; in part because we’re talking about just so, so, so many millions of dollars; and becuase the people involved in making motion pictures can become so filthy rich… and often tend to so flaunt it.

        I get all that. As a liberal/progressive, I’m obviously for the “little guy,” and abhor the indulgences and profane consumption of the rich. But if capitalism is to work, then there must be rich… and poor. When things start to fall apart is when what’s in between goes away…

        …as is, profoundly sadly, happening in the world… and faster in the US than ever before.

        But that’s a rant for another day. The bottom line is that those who create things have to right to benefit from them; and to control them so that said benefit is maximized. They just do, even if it results in them becoming filthy rich and concomitantly godawful human beings.

        The numbers, in any case, Martin, are just painfully clear.

        When a brand new film comes out, it likely uses the most recent encryption methods; and pretty much only DVDFab has really kept-up with those. So a film like “12 Years a Slave” is likelier-than-not ripped by most people using DVDFab. I suspect that if we could chat with Mr. Shen, we’d learn that the number of copies of DVDFab’s free HD Decrypter that have been downloaded and are in use, out there, pretty much corresponds with the numbers of seeders and leechers (plus UseNet participants) out there.

        Yes, of *COURSE* a great many — no, really… *MANY* — users of that software are, indeed, doing with it exactly what you describe, and *ONLY* that. There’s no question about that. Conceded.

        However, I’m sorry, but I’d bet an appendage that if there were a way to empirically prove the numbers, we’d learn that the vast majority of DVDFab software users are ripping to 700MB files (so they’ll fit on a CD) for illegal distribution via bit torrent and UseNet. I’m serious: I’d bet an appendage…

        …and so I’m really glad there’s no way to empirically prove it! [grin] But I know, to the depths of my soul, that I’m right about it. I just know. And so do you… don’t, again, kid a kidder.

        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
        Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

      2. Blue said on March 12, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        The bottom line is the intention of the product as stated on their website. What people choose to do with it is up to them and ultimately the courts can not hold the software company responsible. That is like suing car companies for any auto related accidents, or breweries for any alcohol related incidents. By their logic any paper note written/typed/printed in a harassing manner like conveying an illicit response, or threat … the paper company would be sued. US Laws take too many liberties and are often confusing and damaging as a whole.

  17. ToBee said on March 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    By the way, DVDfab is back up but under a different domain located in China where the US cant touch them. ;)

  18. ToBee said on March 12, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    The US cant touch them for they are located in China. The ONLY thing the US can do is to block their sites through ISP’s and that is it. Even then there are ways around that. Bottom line is the US cant do crap about it. Is the US going to goto war with a country whom they owe their national debt too? I don’t think so. This is all a joke to DVDFab and both the US and China knows it. lol

  19. Noel said on March 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Great free advertisement for DVDFab!!

    1. Luis said on April 23, 2014 at 3:29 pm

      This is not an advertisement.

  20. Swarup said on March 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Thanks martin for publishing the post.

    Last 3 days I am trying to sending mail to one of there marketing staff but every time I get error message. I thought it happened due to some server issue.

    But after read your post I understand why DVDFab.com is not opening and unable to send email to them.

  21. Wolly said on March 12, 2014 at 6:28 am

    DVDFab has its new domain name http://www.dvdfab.cn . DVDFab won’t die.

  22. Jim said on March 12, 2014 at 2:42 am

    The Softpedia link doesn’t work anymore. (They were using an external link back to DVDFab’s site.) Downloading from MajorGeeks still works for the moment.

  23. Dan said on March 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    I’ve used Freemake Video Converter to rip a DVD to MP4 once.

  24. Oxa said on March 11, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    “In some countries … you are allowed to make personal backups from DVD and Blu-Ray movies that you have purchased. Why that is not a given in all countries is a mystery to me.”

    In both the UK and the US it is perfectly legal to make personal backups of DVDs one owns. It is, however, illegal to circumvent DRM, making the copying of DRM-protected disks legally impossible.


    1. Martin Brinkmann said on March 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm

      Which is stupid, as you pay for the right to do something that you may not be allowed to do.

      1. Oxa said on March 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm

        When you buy a DVD or BR, you’re not paying for any rights. You’re paying for a piece of plastic that plays a movie when it’s inserted into a drive.

        The right to make a personal backup is a legal one, granted by legislatures and courts, not by media vendors. It’s not something you buy.

        The use of DVDs and BRs is a contractual matter, governed by licensing agreements. (Yes, when you purchase such a product you are implicitly agreeing to the vendor’s terms of service.) Try reading the licensing agreement sometime.

      2. Martin Brinkmann said on March 11, 2014 at 11:15 pm

        I pay with every blank CD, DVD, printer, hard drive, computer, smartphone and probably also microwave that I purchase.

      3. yronnen said on March 11, 2014 at 10:37 pm

        Hence the movement to everything as a service model. With Netflix, you get the movies as long as you pay a monthly fee. Same for Microsoft Office 365 and other software packages today. The consumers learned how to break the DRM, so now they don’t get to own the intellectual property.

  25. yronnen said on March 11, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    At the age of HD streaming via Netflix and other providers, I find it amusing that the studios keep on fighting against fair use and video ripping? Isn’t it the same as ripping a CD? You can do that even with iTunes.

    Admittedly, with most of the latest BR releases, you get a digital copy that can be used on your mobile device (although, I usually prefer a lower resolution and bitrate for my iPad mini to reduce the huge file size), but I should be able to extract video from my older BRs, or else I’d have to find other sources for the movie…

    The studios lost the battle for music ripping over 10 years ago, it’s time to get with the program on video as well.

    1. Q said on March 13, 2014 at 4:51 am

      Andrew, my bringing up United States Government’s Fist Amendment of the Constitution document does not directly relate to DVDFab software nor was it or should it imply that computer code is a form of free speech.

      Rather, the point was that although the U.S. Government might have the specified power to enact Copyright law, it is prohibited to do so by the First Amendment. If the United States Congress were to attempt to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”, it could not do so without violating one of the enumerated prohibitions of the First Amendment. Wherefore, the United States Congress’ power to enact copyright law both exists and is prohibited such that it’s availability is disallowed. And wherefore, it is illegal for the United States Congress/government to enact copyright law.

      Do take note that the amendment is a prohibition of a government power or powers rather than establishment of some power. The amendment has much more relevant application other than regarding speech. I recommend you examine the amendment language, and first attempt to interpret it as it is written; no more and no less.

      I do realize that modern law in United States is not practiced in this manner, but what is considered law in modern times is quite perverted (interpret this as it is written) and does not represent the true law itself. (There is much more that can be expanded on this point, but I shall leave this point as is)

      I am not giving this information in capacity as a legal professional.

      1. NALS Certified said on October 13, 2016 at 6:23 am

        You are all debating what is called “Case Law” wherein the opinion rendered by a court in consideration of a specific piece of legislation is regarded to have either ‘suggestive’, ‘persuasive’ or ‘controlling’ qualities in regard to other court cases being heard. Depending on whether the deciding court is above, equal to, or below the court hearing the current case (tiers), the previous decision can influence the new case’s outcome in ways that do not follow the spirit the interpreted law was originally conceived in.

        This is how a greedy company that is at odds with certain legislative efforts, goes about changing the rules of the game to their favor. We the people, get crushed in the process.

      2. Anonymous said on April 20, 2014 at 10:55 pm

        When the US constitution was being written, copyright was between 5 and 7 years. Right now copyright is usually 70 years after the author’s death, in some cases up to 120 years after creation of the copyrighted work. A copyright of 5 to 7 years is reasonable, a copyright of 70 years is excessive.

      3. Gregg DesElms said on March 13, 2014 at 9:00 am

        Q WROTE: I am not giving this information in capacity as a legal professional.

        MY RESPONSE: Obviously. Painfully so, in fact. Heck, you’re not even giving it in [the] (you forgot your article) capacity of an amateur who passed high school government class with at least a “C”.

        The only time I’ve ever read a more tortured interpretation of the Constitution is when those who think the government has no right to tax anyone make their convoluted arguments; or when those who think the Second Amendment — at least as originally written — grants the right to anyone (who’s not in an organized militia, anyway) to bear arms desperately try to make their insensible case.

        It’s always amazing to me when people cite the plain language of law — in this case, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States — and then somehow see, somewhere in it, what they then say they see: in your case, that Congress is not empowered to enact copyright law.

        Watching it, for me, is little different from watching an alcoholic with the DTs seeing spiders on the wall. He sees ’em, but they’re not there…

        …just as not one single, solitary thing that you wrote about what Congress may or may not do with respect to copyright law is anywhere even remotely close to being in the First Amendment.

        Please read a book — er… you know… one written by someone other than a member of Possee Comitatus, I mean — on what free speech, as set forth in the First Amendment, and then subsequently refined by two centuries of case law, even actually means. Please. I’m beggin’ ya’. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when your brow furrows as you read; and it begins to dawn on you that you weren’t even close; and as you mutter, to yourself, that you really need to stop visiting and being sucked-in by ultra-right-winged websites whose authors just pretty much make it all up as they go along.

        [sigh] Oy. [shakes head in disbelief]


        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
        Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    2. Andrew said on March 11, 2014 at 10:16 pm

      I don’t think it’s so much about ripping as it is breaking the encryption in legal sense. Kind of like breaking the DRM on files. But yeah, I completely agree with you.

      1. Andrew said on March 12, 2014 at 11:24 pm

        @Q, I just want to confirm. so correct me if I am wrong, but you bringing up the first amendment in regards to copyright law (and this software) is imply that computer code is a form of free speech? I ask this because I see this debate pop up here and there and always found it quite interesting.

        As for the what the government does, and it’s legality or if it’s constitutional, I think a lot of people already see that the US Govt is exercising much more law and control than they have the right to do so…

      2. Q said on March 12, 2014 at 8:20 pm

        Andrew, remember the part where I stated that many United States Government laws are in contradiction? The United States Constitution is (supposed to be) considered the supreme tier of the law. The clause from the Constitution Articles you made reference to is indeed part of the supreme law/tier. However, the Constitution was amended to include many restrictions and prohibitions to government power given by the Articles. The amendments are also of supreme tier of law in United States. In particular, the Constitution document’s first amendment provides supreme prohibition unto the only part of government truly given the power to make laws (“Congress”) such that future copyright laws should not come to be. The amendment was made into law far before the inferior tiered laws granting various powers of copyright. The language of the United States Constitution document’s First Amendment is:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        So the power to enact copyright law given, but its (the power) use is disallowed. I can think of no examples where or how copyright law may be enacted legally.

        I am not giving this information in capacity as a legal professional.

      3. Andrew said on March 12, 2014 at 5:09 pm

        @Q, I agree about your comment on DRM, it is a very profitable and anti-consumer method of making money since it requires the consumer to purchase the media for different sources if they cannot copy it over due to the DRM.

        But I am confused about your first paragraph. You state “This is very apparent with regards to the enforcement of the legal concept of copyright which is supposed to be illegal in United States”. I believe copyright is perfectly legal, as I usually get pointed to the copyright clause in the constitution, as states:

        “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

      4. Q said on March 12, 2014 at 12:19 am

        The United States Government has many laws, many of which are in contradiction. There is a tiered hierarchy of those laws such that laws of inferior tier should not be preferred to the superior tier. The United States Government, however, tends to disregard and not respect the hierarchy. This is very apparent with regards to the enforcement of the legal concept of copyright which is supposed to be illegal in United States; its implementation is of a legal tier inferior to a tier where its creation is prohibited. In United States, it is not truly the law which determines what United States finds permissible.

        DRM is interesting in that it itself is a profitable business. There is quite a lot of profit to be reaped in the licensing of the DRM and its related complements. The business of DRM might yield higher return than the actual content or thing that the DRM is applied to; wherefore, the effectiveness of the DRM in preventing copying may be considered as secondary and a bonus. (Similar to how some businesses provide whatever good or service primarily for the ad revenue rather than that specifically for the good or service)

        Software that nullifies or works around DRM threatens to reduce the profitability of the DRM scheme. That is really what this is about.

        I am not giving this information in capacity as a legal professional.

      5. Andrew said on March 11, 2014 at 10:39 pm

        @yronnen, maybe in regards to music, but it’s alive and well in video media.

      6. yronnen said on March 11, 2014 at 10:33 pm

        You’re right, but the concept DRM itself became obsolete (e.g. ITunes and DRM’d music).

      7. Martin Brinkmann said on March 11, 2014 at 10:27 pm

        You are right about that.

  26. DVDFab said on March 11, 2014 at 7:04 pm
    1. Gregg DesElms said on March 12, 2014 at 5:15 pm
  27. InterestedBystander said on March 11, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Interesting. I once ordered a concert DVD from Amazon, only to find it was region-locked for the European zone and unreadable in North America. Offhand I can’t remember what application I used to get around the lock. (I had paid for the content, after all.) That was on Windows; I believe that Linux DVD players like Xine and Kaffeine (a front-end for Xine) are multi-region capable.

  28. Andrew said on March 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Some things never change… Industry has been fighting the same war since the… 1970’s?

    If they would embrace change and media consumption statistics, they could cut out the crap lawsuits and profit from new forms of distributions imo.

  29. X said on March 11, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    So now, no one in the WHOLE WORLD can access the DVDFab site…
    I’m just wondering what would have happened if a -let’s say German- judge had issued the injunction.
    Net neutrality, anyone?

    1. Albert Smiths said on March 17, 2014 at 8:32 am

      In fact,I feel that’s really ridiculously to suspend or block the DVDFab’s website. I also need to backup now and then. I notice that the site dvdfab.cn has been used to take place of the original one.They also appeal to support and vote for DVDFab by establishing the site ilikedvdfab.com. I think we users should go to vote to protest our own right and interests.

    2. Martin Brinkmann said on March 11, 2014 at 6:43 pm

      It would have been ignored most likely by everyone.

      1. X said on March 11, 2014 at 7:31 pm

        Most likely???
        And to think I thought sicherlich meant certainly…

      2. Martin Brinkmann said on March 11, 2014 at 10:12 pm

        I’m not from Switzerland but a friend of mine told me that this is the case. I have not consulted a lawyer proficient in Swiss copyright law, so, take it with a grain of salt.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.