I didn't write that I am a professional DVD author. I wrote that I have authored a number of DVDs. There's a difference.
You entirely avoid the legal discussion by simply labelling each activity "illegal". I want to know why something should be illegal for one video format that is legal for another? I'm not denying that DVD copying may be illegal, but asking the larger question of why. If making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal simply because the industry created copy protection technology and said "No!", then I would argue that this is extremely bad law. It segregates the rights of artists based on the format of their product. Authors of the printed word are not similarly protected from having their work copied. Heck, they have copy machines right there in the library. But an artist who produces DVDs gets enhanced legal benefits that generate additional sales, since the technology itself creates an additional right for him.
If that's really the legal situation, then that's one screwed up set of laws.
Chris, you're argument is resting on the idea that it is somehow "Legal" to copy a VHS tape, and therefore, under your argument it should be OK to do the same to a DVD.
First, that argument is bad. Copying either is against the law. Just because it's easier to do it with a VHS, doesn't mitigate that.
You are not allowed to sell the services of backing up, ripping, editing, and then re-authoring, which is what this thread is about. Because let's be honest here, the "companies" that are doing this aren't just making a "personal backup" are they?
As someone in this Industry, I can tell you, there's a whole lot more that goes into creating a Pro Release DVD title than simply using some off the shelf "Authoring" software, and doing some Drag and Drop DVD assembly. It can take huge ammount of time and effort to create an A-Title release. DVD Authors, Graphics artists, Motion Graphics artists, Compressionists, Technical managers, and Quality Control people put a lot of work into creating the DVD.
What the "companies" in question were doing undoes all that work, and the result is substandard, badly compressed, poorly edited, and woefully re-authored, regurgitated crap. Someone would be just as well to wait the extra couple of months and watch the moving Pan and Scanned on Netowrk TV, if they are that anxious to see the movie in a form that doesn't offend them.
There is a process for doing "sanitised" Parental Controls, but the results are marginal at best, and most Producers won't use it because of those poor results, and substancial costs involved in adding that "feature".
However, that being said, it needs to be done at the time of the original authoring, and NOT by some hack, working out of his home computer, using ripped material, with substandard equipment and software, for it to be legal.
What this case is based on is old-time copyright that nobody can really refute -- an author has control over derivative works.
What you're talking about is the current corruption of our copyright laws by a powerful entertainment lobby. Through the DMCA (no circumvention) and CTEA ("Mickey Mouse copyright protection act"), the copyright cartel's lapdogs in Congress have granted rights and terms to the copyright holders far beyond the intent of the Constitution that set the basis for copyright. It is bad law.