Talk:Ripping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed link to a commercial site, the link said "FAQ and glossary", but the site offered no information, just an audio CD ripping service. -- Diegovh, 19:06, 1 Nov 2006 (CST)

I added the link to Audio Grabber, I figured it was a good place to mention it, its a great freeware application for ripping CD's to mp3, I think its relevant to wikipedia as its a freeware application and not shareware.. It is closed source, but some things are hard to open sources to.. Anyhow.. --Rofthorax 09:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the the links to the software at the bottom of this article are for freeware CD ripping programs. In keeping with fairness typical of what I believe most Wikipedians wish to see, I think there should also be a link to alternative pay-software used for CD ripping. This is not dissimilar to the way that Wikipedia articles such as the article regarding the Open audio format Ogg also has a link to the proprietary audio format MP3 as an alternative. --ThatNateGuy 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph treats ripping as something prohibited, the second as something allowed. Which is it?

The whole thing treated ripping as a mechanical process and then threw in unsubstantiated remarks about legality whose accuracy differs with jurisdiction, so for now I've removed them. Someone else can add a section on legality if they like later.

Feel free if you wish to just go ahead and make the changes yourself in future; Wikipedia encourages users to be bold and jump in to make the change. — mendel ☎ 01:27, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't check the history and discussion section before I added the one-liner comment that backing up legal media is perfectly legal in the US. I added this because I thought it would be informative to some who may have the mistaken impression that it is somehow not. --69.212.108.244 21:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering Sony pioneered the mpeg-audio format and the CD's.. With the intent of storing movies on CD's.. It's their own dumb luck that people connected the two together to make backup copies of CD's. It is not illegal to rip CD's to mp3 as long as you own the CD's themselves.. It is illegal to burn songs from mp3's from CD's you don't own.. But some people think the evil starts when you make the mp3's which is no worse than copying the data on the CD's verbatim to WAV files. BTW, I believe the bit about France, the French tend to encourage communities, and a law like this prevents people from selling content, but it allows friends to share content, which is probably why it doesn't matter if the master copy is legal. Play a game of Petanque sometime.

--Rofthorax 09:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you quite sure of your statement regarding the legality of creating backup CDs? To my understanding, the current legislation in the United States is still too vague to make that kind of assertion without providing a link to a some court case (preferably one presided over by the United States Supreme court) showing precidence of some sort. I'm not trying to say at all that you are incorrent in your assertion, just that other readers may not understand the law well enough and may attempt to make backup copies CDs based sole on your statement and may end up getting in some sort of legal trouble and I don't wish to see that happen. --ThatNateGuy 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, most civilised states don't sue you for things you do within your own four walls with things you own when there's nobody else affected by it. Ripping is a convienient method of copying the data stored on the CD onto the PC in order to play it back without having to swap CDs or in order to transfer it to a mobile device such as a cell phone or MP3 player.

As long as the music industry can't agree on whether they're selling the physical medium (CDs) or the data (the content of the CDs), I don't think there's a bulletproof answer to the question of legality, though. And right now it seems as if the industry is once again shifting more towards the idea of selling a service rather than a product (i.e. the "right" to use the CD you bought in a certain number of ways, akin to a EULA -- ala Microsoft) because it's great if you can sell a product to the same customer more than once (which is where WMA DRM and online music stores come in).

I wouldn't mind the whole dispute so much if they would just cut the "ethics" crap (like calling illegal sharing of their "intellectual property" "piracy") and said what they mean (it _always_ boils down to wanting more money).

Erm... sorry for the rant. To answer the original question: Legality of ripping legal CDs you have legally purchased through legal means varies regionally, probably even within the US. It used to be legal in Germany, but I have a vague memory of that having changed, although I can't verify that, so I'll just stick to what my ethics tell me. -- Ashmodai 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the last one-liner paragraph is out of place for now in the article, esp. since it's not talking about ripping. Maybe it needs to be re-worded or removed? --69.212.108.244 21:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 1.8G Pentium 4 is faster than 1.8G Sempron??? 2 Old rippers 3 Plagiarism 4 Legal status 5 NPOV section 6 Ripping comes from Ripping Off?? 7 Merge Digital audio extraction Article into Ripping?

[edit] 1.8G Pentium 4 is faster than 1.8G Sempron???

in the text (e.g. a Pentium 4 will be faster than a Celeron or and AMD Sempron with the same clock speed) is utterly not true. P4 1.8Ghz is much much slower than a Sempron 1.8Ghz (Sempron 3100+). I have the latter and I can clearly notice the difference.

I think there's also an inaccuracy in the statement that "a Pentium running at 120MHz will do that twice as fast as a similar 60MHz chip." Maybe that section can be replaced with this: "the encoding device (in most cases a PC) will encode the digital input to a compressed format. This is a purely CPU-related task, so factors such as the CPU's clock speed, architecture, and design will limit encoding speed." I'll change it to this if nobody objects. --Ash211 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done --Ash211 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old rippers

The article mentions some rippers, but winDAC (Windows Digital Audio Copy) has been around for quite some time. Around 97/98-ish the norm where I was from was to use winDAC to rip and Xing to encode. In so far as bit rates, it was never an issue. It's still one of the faster rippers, but then, I guess I'm not a great judge of that because I've only used three or four others.

[edit] Plagiarism

This edit brings up the usage of ripping as in plagiarizing someone else's work. Perhaps a disambiguation page should be made at Ripping (disambiguation) that includes a link to both the Ripping page and plagiarism too. I'm looking at a page similar to plagiarism (disambiguation). What do you guys think about directing this usage of ripping over to the plagiarism article? --Ash211 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that the page at Rip is more what I'm looking for, but with an entry to Plagiarism. My bad. --Ash211 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status

Much as it's interesting to know the legal status of ripping in the US and France, are there any sources available that detail the legal status in various other countries around the world?

zoney ♣ talk 11:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV section

Does this section on plagiarism even need to be here? It's not NPOV, and I can't even figure out what encyclopedic content it's trying to disseminate. --TreyHarris 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's opinionated, uncited, and if it is a legit use of the word "ripping" (to be verified with a primary source), then it deserves the usual disambig treatment like rip saw gets, not an irrelevant section in this article. --Ds13 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripping comes from Ripping Off??

To me there's no immediate connection between ripping and ripping someone off. Only in the sense of "I'm ripping x off the DVD", but not in the sense of "I'm ripping off Sony or whoever". Nczempin 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's a strong connection there either. Though the MIAA and MPAA might have you believe otherwise. As this link points out, waaaay back in the day, we used to rip the music tracks out of binaries (ROM or disk images from old 8 bit computers). Legalities aside, the action was to rip it out of its original context, as someone rips a page out of a newspaper. --Ds13 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Digital audio extraction Article into Ripping?

Maybe merge the DAE article into the ripping article? Makes sense, just needs a little update in the Ripping article to state that when you are ripping audio CD's it is called DAE. The DAE page acts a little too much like an entry in a dictionary. - Pupilar - 09:34, 15 June 2006 (GMT)