This may seem simple but...

[Gerard]

No, this is not about circumventing copy protection, and this is not about Decrypter. I wouldn't dare to go there again . I obviously have not made myself clear. Let me try in another way.

 

ImgBurn can and will make an image of an unprotected DVD, but it will refuse to do so if the DVD is protected, right?

My question (and Jason T's, I think) is why the same principle cannot be applied to copying (or refusing to) the original files instead of creating an image.

 

Again, this is not about trying to bring Decrypter back to life. I am not even interested in the option of copying the files. I'm just curious.

[dontasciime]

why would you want the files, if your so desperate for files video_ etc then create ISO then extract it.( you need winrar)

 

read ISO in ImgBurn is for non protected material, protected material you need something else. ImgBurn works as it was intended.

[polopony]

drive would have to seek constantly to write directory entries for each file whereas with an ISO(1 file ) its write once .The ISO has all the files, its really only a photograph of the files and they can be extracted if you choose

 

IB will refuse to copy protected dvd's with a message

[Gerard]

So Polopony, if I understand it correctly, there is not really a technical problem, it's just that it takes much more time than building an image. Or is it that ImgBurn would have to check again and again for protection?

 

I want to stress again I'm just curious about the technicalities, I don't need file copying.

[polopony]

you're never going to have files on the hard drive with encryption , so IB doesn't need to check, it would be impossible to copy to the HD without bypassing copyright protection ,so if the files are on the hd then they are not encrypted and you can do pretty much anything you want with them

[Gerard]

Thanks