Talk:DVD X Copy

Untitled
Bold text

Tagged as an ad?
Not sure why this is tagged as an advert. The company is out of business and the last product release was in 2003. All the text is based on fact.

In fact, the website dvdxcopy.com is simply pointing to shill review sites. This article isn't an advert for a product, it's serving as a link farm to a commercial site. Georgevtucker 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the advertisement problem, is the problem the link to dvdxcopy.com? That was the actual commercial website for 321 Studios and contains relevant product information as well as a customer support login interface. This is an important article, as important as Napster is/was to the music industry. There is a link to a review site at the bottom, but also several news articles about DVD X Copy that also point to dvdxcopy.com. What gives? Please read the articles before tagging legitimate articles as "advertising". Also, how is this article tagged as an advert (which it clearly is not) yet CloneDVD is a blatant advert, is not?

Fair use rationale for File:DVD X Copy.jpg
File:DVD X Copy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

321 studios v.Metro Goldwyn Mayer
Guys i changed this article because on the main DVD X Copy websight they are still selling their software openly. To see this is true for you self click the link in the main article or follow this link www.dvdxcopy.com and scroll down. it shows the products for sale, lists prices, and has a large button that says "BUY NOW." if this was previousley known information and it is a different form of the product that is now legal, then my edit should be edited to that legal versions are still being sold, but a reader should not be mislead into believing that no form of DVD X Copy is sold at all. Thank You. Intruder360 09:52, 16 January 2008 (GMT)

Change title to 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer
I propose to change the name of the article, this will keep the historical value of this article intact since DVD X Copy itself is no longer sold and the article still contains relevant information.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)