The right to make back-up copies for personal use of digital media has indeed been ruled on.
For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use. The entire point of objections to the DMCA is exactly that it abridges your ability to actually do that.
Even Quad admits to that.
... and reminds you that such is irrelevant every time you keep trying to derail back into it. Which is many times, now. Grow the fuck up.
And my username is "quadraphonics." Do not apply any pet names to me, or you will be reported. And while you're at it, do not go around telling people what I do or do not think or say. Speak for yourself, only.
The only contention left is, is that right superseded by the provisions of the DMCA?
My contention is that it is not.
The right is not superseded, but the ability to actually exercise this right is abridged. If someone sells you a DVD without copy protection, then you can make a back-up copy of that without any issues. If someone sells you a DVD with copy protection, then bypassing that protection without a waiver from the Copyright Board is a violation of the DMCA. The fact that you might have legal, Fair uses for the decrypted content is irrelevant. It's the decryption that is covered by the DMCA, not the copying.
the fact that the software to make these copies is readily available and has been purchased by millions of people from stores like Office Depot and Amazon supports that conclusion.
Stop lying. It has already been amply demonstrated that you cannot legally obtain decryption software from American entities. You have to illegaly acquire software from a foreign and/or black market source to decrypt DVDs. You have provided nothing material to dispute these facts.
Those who argue that it is illegal to make backup copies of DVDs have no actual court cases to justify their conclusion
And since nobody has argued that, you are - still - attacking a strawman.
and thus use their own interpretation of how the courts would interpret the DMCA as it relates to non-technical users using purchased software to make fair use backup copies for their personal use
I have cited multiple expert opinions concurring with that. Stop lying.
and simply say that the reason it's never gone to a trial is that it's not worth it to the copyright holders or the DAs of the country to do anything about it.
DAs are - still - irrelevant to civil matters. Stop invoking irrelevancies, and instead try to develop a modicum of honor.
Well the other equally valid argument is that no one has been sued/arrested is simply because no one thinks they would prevail in court.
Arrest remains irrelevant.
And the validity is not equal, because it is not backed by any actual legal texts or expert opinions. That is simply your own, personal, non-expert view, which you have been noteably unable to provide any support for.
In any case we can argue forever about what the legal result would be for a court case that has never happened, but it won't resolve the issue.
The issue doesn't require "resolution." Everyone except you has long since seen that you are talking out of your ass, and the purpose of continued discussion is not to pursue any common position - obviously you are never, under any circumstances, going to admit to your error - but rather to further trash your general standing at SciForums by leveraging your pig-headedness to provoke pathetic displays of the sort you are so readily supplying. You should get a clue, and cut your losses by quietly retreating from this issue.
In the meantime, given the 12 year history, it's clear that the legal system and the copyright holders are acting exactly like they would if back-up copies are legal, which leads to the conclusion that they are in fact legal, even if it is just "de facto".
Hmm... I'm guessing that the above is about as close to an explicit concession of defeat as anyone is likely to extract from adoucette. I'll take it.
