More lies, as I've already shown you to be the one talking in circles, trying to claim the Russian hackers weren't criminal but that personal backups somehow are, which of course you know to be false and still have no case history or letters threatenning criminal prosecution, as I have repeatedly shown in the case of the Russian hackers that you laughably called "BS".
You were the one falsely claiming they were distributing the OS itself
Yet another obvious lie, as I have already linked above your exact quotes claimming the Russian hackers had to be distributing OSX itself before their actions could be criminal, and where I clearly exposed your lie and showed criminal prosecution of other Russians who simply distributed a crack and not the software package itself.
is backing up your own personal DVD illegal?
An irrelevant question, with the clear intent of bluring the lines between criminal and illegal, as you continue your attempts to excuse the actual foreign criminals you've been defending with lies for months, which started again on this thread in post 45. LOL you're so far gone even your hell hound FLAMING DEATH has abandoned you this time LMAO.
Simply wrong. I said the article showed no evidence that what they were doing could be liable for criminal prosecution, since no personal financial gain was shown. It is the financial gain that is necessary for criminal prosecution in a DMCA circumvention case. Despite the lack of evidence, you continued to call them criminal. You didn't say possibly criminal, you said criminal.
which of course you know to be false and still have no case history or letters threatenning criminal prosecution
I don't need those. I simply need the law, which as clearly stated can make personal DVD backups criminal.
and where I clearly exposed your lie and showed criminal prosecution of other Russians who simply distributed a crack and not the software package itself.
Again you confuse the applicable laws. You said they were distributing OS X itself, which was a lie. Distributing OS X would not require personal financial gain or profit to be criminal according to the NET Act. But this is about the DMCA, circumvention. And as you've been told many times before, the Elcomsoft case started with an admitted for-profit motive, as opposed to this one.
A good lawyer knows not to use a precedent when it actually hurts his case. Take the advice.
An irrelevant question, with the clear intent of bluring the lines between criminal and illegal,
No, it goes back to the beginning of this, which you have been avoiding. ALL of your previous posts on the subject of circumvention have shown you think it is illegal, if not criminal. I want to know if you think that applies to personal backups.
To mollify your cries of "equivalence" I will state that I do not think that a hacker ripping DVDs so he can put them on the 'net is a good thing. That makes him a bad person who infringes on the rights of others and raises the prices for all of us. I don't use the term "theft" because that is legally incorrect and too soft a term -- they violated someone's rights, which is worse than theft in my book. And as you know I am on the record for supporting fair use despite DRM measures that try to prevent it.