Macrovision Corp. managed to convince the court that the program was being primarily being used in a manner consistant with violations of theDMCA. Arguably, the program is illegal. However, it certainly can't be "recalled", but it's actually possible to use the program in an illegal manner towards a legal end.
DMCA provides that it's illegal to circumvent to copy protection if it's present in the media in question.
However,it's quite legal to copy a disc that you personally own, once, for the express reason of maintaining a backup copy. So after which, you could obviously entertain a lively, (albeit silly) debate, as to whether you could then legally make another backup if the first backup broke.
However, it should be noted, in strict accordance with DMCA, you commited a crime when you cracked your own disc in the first place!
So, IMHO the trial judge in the "above captioned action" ruled correctly with respect to copying versus distribution. With one omission. It's possible that the distribu-tor and the distribu-tee to be the same individual. Borrow a DVD, copy that DVD, keep the copy for yourself. Viola, instant violation of the DMCA, plus the violations of the pre-existing standard copyright laws. You violated the express contract between the lender and yourself, which exculpates the lender from concommitant jeopardy for the instant offense.
Now granted, there are 2 disparate, opposed common law legal principles in operation here. 1; there is no felonius intent when you back up your own DVD. But that contradicts, "I didn't know it was illegal to copy my legally purchased DVD with a legal program. Heh! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
DVD Decrypter is legal in the same sense that a gun is legal. Usage dictates it's status.
The problem is this, the RIAA and MPAA believe that in a case such as, if the owner of a VHS tape copies it onto a DVD, there's a copyright violation. So, they're entitled to make a profit, everytime the media changes. So, while it may sound ridiculous, at some point, you could claim that showing the disc to your friends and family constitutes "public exhibition of a copyrighted work", and that everybody there, should own a copy of the disc before viewing yours, or that everybody present should be made to pay a $1000.00 admission fee to your little home theater. Not to you of course, but to the MPAA! This is perhaps a hyperboly, but it isn't that far from DRM which prevents you from moving a song or movie to another device which you own.
The RIAA in particular is psychotic about the implied "value" of the copyright violation. "Give us $3000.00 because you ripped us off for a .99 cent song. Additionally, they march into court and swear on a stack of bibles, that every copy purloined was a copy they could have sold! If they marched into a psychiatrist's office spouting that same crazy a** s***, they'd find themselves in the state hospital for the mentally insane, at minimun, for a "3 day, long weekend" of fun and observation. Diagnosis, "delusional disorder". Hey, the courts are apparently paid off to believe them. And they're of sufficient pathology to believe themselves.
I always end one of these rants like this; don't sit around your house thinking it's a good idea to see the internet as the source of all your entertainment media. Because boys and girls, and children of all ages, if DVDs are outlawed only outlaws will have DVDs
Now, wouldn't that render all this moot?
And, since software companies are trying to see if they can float the idea that programs should be a subscription service, don't put ANYTHING past the entertainment industry!