I have read the actual 58 page opinion and the statute. The judge is correct in her ruling; it's the statute that is broken.
Here is a read of the law as it pertains to an individual (at least my read from it. Yes, I am an attorney. No, you may not rely on this, the law in this area is too uncertain to be sure of anything).
An individual who owns DVDs could otherwise copy the contents under fair use, assuming there was no copy protection. This is made clear by the proliferation of iPods and people being encouraged to rip their unprotected CD collections. I see no reason why video works would have more protection than audio works.
1201(a) of the DMCA is clear that it is unlawful for anyone (except those listed in (1)(A)(B)) to circumvent access protection, or manufacture, traffic, etc. in a product that circumvents access protection. Access, however, is not copying (under the law); it is playing the DVD. See the
opinion at page 38 lines 10-12 and 21-22.
1201(b) prohibits manufacturing, importing, providing, making available to the public, or trafficking something that circumvents the copyright holder's rights, which includes copying. This is different from (a) in that the actual circumvention is not prohibited.
What does this mean? It would seem to mean that an individual owner of a DVD could copy the disk by circumventing the protection. How? Well if you write your own software, you would be manufacturing, so that is out. If you buy software, then you are trafficking, so no go there. But if you downloaded something that is free (like DVD Shrink) from a domestic server (to avoid importing), then it would seem that you are not violating the law. This is supported by:
"Since copying may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances,section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying." Page 38, line 20-22, quoting the US Copyright summary.
"The fact that Congress elected to leave technologically unsophisticated persons who wish to make fair use of encrypted copyrighted works without the technical means of doing so is a matter for Congress." Page 39, line 24-26, quoting
Reimerdes, an other case.
This copy, however, would have to leave all the copyright protections intact, else you would be circumventing the access protections. This means you could not run an image file off your computer. Such an act would require unauthorized access. The image would have to be burned to a disc and accessed through an authorized player.
The whole access vs. copying thing would also seem to apply to the analog hole, like if you play a DVD in a player, and then record the analog out. The player allows for lawful access, so no 1201(a) violation, and as discussed above, there is no violation for the actual circumvention of copy protection.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram