It's illegal to copy any copyrighted movie. They don't just put the FBI warnings on them for nothing. If you get caught, which is very unlikely, you could pay a very hefty fine and/or spend time in prison. Copying DVDs is considered piracy and piracy is a crime.
it's legal for the programs to be developed and downloaded in most/all countries; they can even be used legally, but not for discs with copy protection.
Most places that I've seen that host downloads for Decrypter or Shrink have disclaimers about the legality of their use in the US. Some have a question "Do you live in the US?" If you click yes then you get redirected, no gets your download.
Although I am not a lawyer (nor do I play on one TV), I have studied this issue in depth, since it has been peripherally related to my own career. The laws in the US on this issue are actually in conflict, and most of us are waiting for that first "test case" to see where the chips may fall. (Or, perhaps one might say that the current earlier court rulings on this issue are in conflict with a piece of Congressional legislation, which has been law since shortly after 9/11). Through a series of rulings (beginning with the Betamax case, which went all of the way to the Supreme Court), it became quite legal for American consumers to make a backup of a movie that they had purchased, for their own private purposes. This precedent was set back on the days when the VCR was just hitting its explosion. Obviously, this did not include any attempt to "share" that movie with friends, or to sell it, nor to sell the original purchased copy (while keeping the backup). Early in the days of computing, lower courts ruled similarly on the issue of making a single backup copy of computer software that you had already purchased. So, technically, you can still make a backup copy of any of those VHS tapes you have purchased (even those that have copy protection schemes such as Macrovision or Copygard on them), if you can find a way to circumvent the copy protection. That is all legal. Backing up a rental film, though, is clearly illegal, and the U.S. courts have affirmed this on many occasions. Then, came the recent "Digital Millenium Copyright Act." Ouch. You can thank those who voted for good old George Bush, and those from his administration who actually argued that this act and all of its provisions were an absolute necessity in its war on terrorism... The DMCA ("Digital Millenium Copyright Act") actually prohibits circumventing any copy protection scheme on any "digital" material. So, if one believes that this newer legislation is the current set of rules we must live by, then the use of any "ripper" in order to remove the copy protections which exist on a DVD is techincally illegal. However, the intent of several earlier pieces of legislation makes it clear that this same practice is legal if you have purchased a movie, and merely wish to safeguard it, or to allow it to be displayed on an additional player elsewhere in the home, or if you are concerned about it being physically damaged or ruined. The film industry, of course, lobbied very, very heavily to ensure this legislation (the DMCA) had those "unknown" little provisions in it, and they similarly lobbied very hard to ensure that it was passed, and also that it be "renewed" very recently. Some have noted that some parts of the legislation seem very far removed from Homeland Security's concerns about the use of encryption and decryption by terrorists, but so be it. It is currenly law. So, where do we stand? In a state of limbo. We have seen one major software manufacturer forced to drop their "ripper," after they were takien to court, over exactly this issue. They did not have the legal backing (or financial resources) to truly fight this in a major way, with appeals, etc. They tried to stay financially afloat, briefly, but simply "went under" and disappeared... We are all waiting for the first major legal challenge, to serve as the "test case" to decide if this part of the Digital Digital Millenium Copyright Act is Constitutional, since it would seem at least on the surface to violate the rights granted to us earlier. There are a few exceptions to the "illegal-to-circumvent-copy-protection-on-anything-digital" rule. Very few. For example, a library which has a document or artifact that is stored digitally, and copy-protected, can go ahead and archive it, to safe guard it, AS LONG as the identical material is not available for purchase through normal channels. So, even for a public library, if it is a DVD of testimonials from Holocaust survivors that exists only in this single format, and that is not available for purchase at all, the library could "break" the copy protection to make a back up copy. However, if it is a DVD of "Schindler's List," they must buy a second copy. The law is this specific. It is this strict. Its exceptions are very few, and very narrow. It is, to be sure, in some ways, a Hollywood dream legislation. A couple of final thoughts... A test case brought all of the way to the Supreme Court might have a completely different outcome today than that of the original "Betamax" case. It is an entirely different court now (surely we have been following the news), and this may affect a lot of our liberties for decades to come... (sorry, I could not resist a bit of a political shot, as much as I have tried to refrain from this.) In the meantime, I do continue to break the law -- probably -- as I refuse to allow my kids to take my DVDs upstairs to play in their player, and I certainly do not want them dragging them out to play in my wife's mini-van. Only this morning, my 13-year-old son asked his mother if he could watch the Extended Version of "The Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring" in her mini-van. She said "no," and took it from his hands. She also knew enough to bring the issue to me. So, it looks like I have a LOT of tough backing up to do, as he mentioned that he wants to watch "all of them again," only in her van, during his drive to school. There are those of us here who respect intellectual property, and will try to follow copyright law. However, I will not pay another $90 and purchase these a second time, just to allow him this tiny luxury. -Bruce
