Spiky, I'll acquiesce to your findings. But I found a few things interesting...

It's interesting that the references never mention copies for home or personal use. And they refer to legal copying for archives, but if they're recognized archives, why would they need to "copy" in the first place? The laws deal strictly and specifically with circumventing copy-protection technology. And it goes further to explain that it's for the express purpose of denying the ability to profit from it.

The DMCA defines copying as: "...a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work" again, avoiding using the term "personal backup".

The law effectively makes making copies for home use an illegal venture, but for the wrong reasons. I guess this is why it's a hotly debated topic.

I really think the whole idea of a "personal backup" copy could be put to bed if DVD makers offered free exchanges for damaged disks. That could drive up the cost of DVD's though. I guess your only other options are a mega changer which doesn't protect the original, or something like the Kaleidescape for $27K!