Talk:BackupHDDVD

Noteworthy?

As it stands right now there is no reason for this program to be in Wikipedia. If and when the program is proven to be functional and gains the notoriety that DeCSS did, it should be included. Until then (if it ever happens), I vote for deletion. Peter Nelson 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. This is entirely noteworthy and has been featured on leading news agency reports. -JX

• I also feel it's noteworthy - it has received a lot of coverage - if it turns out to be a hoax then the article will reflect that. This is much better than someone coming to Wikipedia and typing in BackupHDDVD and finding nothing. Kim Meyrick 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's noteworthy. All the world is speaking about it. Even if it's only a proof of concept or a hoax, the BackupHDDVD is here to stay in pop tech culture.

• I also disagree. The Wikipedia just needed altering to reflect more of the facts. I feel that whether it is a hoax or not, it has had a profound effect on the tech community. Paper_Techno

• I also believe this is noteworthy, and should stand. This program is the first of its kind (sort of what the Model T is to automobiles), its highly controversial(like the current hanging of Saddam Hussain), and its a major news article for the tech community. If it were a flop, I could put this article under a closer eye for deletion, but many users report that the program works, and thus it stays. I DO however believe this could be cleaned up a lot more. It looks like a straight copy/paste from the Doom9 forums. -Ghostalker

• Totally disagree. Google for application documentation and title keys if you can't figure out how it works. 85.96.235.116 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned with the edits made. It seems all factual information about this program has been removed. I feel that the wikipedia tells us nothing about the program as it stands and assumes a certain amount of knowledge. I can't write at the standard required. I'd appreciate it if someone would translate what I have put into the correct language rather than just deleting entire sections Paper_Techno

"Decryption of AES" - Don't you mean ACSS?

Origin of the source code

By itself the program, which consists largely of an implementation of Java-based sample code made freely available by the entity which oversees AACS licensing[1],

The Java source code probably doesn't origin from any AACS licensing party. Nor there is any link proving any freely accessible Java-code sample from any AACS licensing party... It's a simple AES decoder implementation, which has surely been written by the 'muslix64' entity itself... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.19.105.165 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Links to Downloads

Currently, the page has links to directly download the application (with mirrors) too, anyone else feel this is a bit much? --82.15.233.238 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No why? Does it break any laws?--84.160.95.57 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PowerDVD

I can't find any of Muslix64 where he claims he got the keys from PowerDVD...--84.160.95.57 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BackupBluRay

someone should mention that other variant too, especially because it makes a statement in the Reactions section obsolete. Torzsmokus 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The criteria, with my comments: 1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.

Yep. Very clear.

(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

Yes.

(c) It does not seriously violate the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style. (In particular, sections to go by include the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation)

Yes

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

Yes. Plenty of linking, and adequate explanation as well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Yes. Extremely well referenced.

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations is not mandatory, it is highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.

Inline citations more than adequate.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

Uses some forum posts and other sources that may not be reliable, but in this context (especially as primary sources) I think that's acceptable.

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

Looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

Only comment is that I'm sure I saw a suggestion somewhere that it was WinDVD not PowerDVD that was used to extract keys. Not a huge issue, though.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

Yes

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

Yes

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Yes

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

Yes

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

N/A

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale.

N/A

Well done. That looks like a pass to me. JulesH 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Public domain...

What evidence suggests that this program has been released into the public domain? --Iamunknown 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No license doesn't mean public domain. Technically, the author retains copyright and could sue infringers for damages if he tries to sell it. I deleted reference to "public domain." ←Ben^B4 05:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox still says it's public domain. I'll delete that when/if I finish my hunt for a copy of this (when I can look at the source code files). --Gronky (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it now and clarified the lack of a licence in the intro. --Gronky (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed info

Moved from Article:

Thou one of they keys is widely available on the internet, including such reputable sites as NY Times, Digg and Wikipedia; furthermore may television and radio stations have broadcasted the key at some point.

The part of the article where this was added relates to Volume and Title keys, and has nothing to do with the AACS encryption key controversy (which is already documented elsewhere in the article). Noclip 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a part of the sentence that speaks about author not providing keys. I think it's not proper to keep silent about the key being available WIDELY, as it is. Kirils 07:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that sentence is talking about completely different keys. The "Digg key" is mentioned at the end of the history section. Noclip 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BackupHDDVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104085534/http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Took_Eight_Days_to_Crack_HD_DVD/551-78152-581.html to http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Took_Eight_Days_to_Crack_HD_DVD/551-78152-581.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a link for download?

Recently, a copy of this program was added to the Internet Archive. I feel like we should link to that page, not sure though. 69.67.89.46 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)