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.
That's simply not true. Copies for personal use have been permitted under Fair Use all along. It's only been with copy protection technology that the conundrum has arisen: Copying for personal use is legal, but breaking the copy-protection technology is not.
There is a solution in the works though. (See DVD Backup May Become Legal) This seems to address that little perversion of reason.
Because let's be honest here, the "companies" that are doing this aren't just making a "personal backup" are they?
They're making an edited copy of a legally purchased movie for the sole use of the movie owner, which is no different, IMO. Again, you need to get past the technology issues of DVDs and look at the pure copyright issue. That's why I keep switching to books as examples instead. That makes it easier to avoid the distractions of the particular media format and focus on the actual copyright issues.
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.
As someone in the industry, I believe your view of the whole situation is tainted by your personal investment in the issue. You can't see the forest for the trees. Copyright law should be the same for any content, regardless of media, IMO. For every other media format, Fair Use has allowed the owner to make personal copies. DVD copy protection software denies that long-standing fair use with the goal of generating more sales.
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.
What's your point? The quality of the copy is completely irrelevant to the legal questions. This is just more evidence that you're wrapping up a lot more into this discussion than just the legalities of Fair Use copying. The customer is perfectly free to not buy the "crappy", edited one so they can have the superior quality.
If they buy a legal copy of the movie, why shouldn't consumers have the choice of watching it how they want, edited or not? The studio has been paid for that copy. You have been paid your share of that copy. What skin is it off your nose if that consumer edits his copy (or has a business do it for him) for content?
If he paid for it, why do you care what he does with it?