Before the DCMA, copyright law restricted only the SALE OF COPIES of works that were under copyright.
The DCMA made it illegal not only to SELL ... but even to COPY a work for one's own use (although some exceptions still apply).
At issue in this case though, are the provisions of the DCMA making it illegal for one private party to manufacture, distribute, or otherwise traffic in devices or technology that will enable another private party to make a (now) illegal copy of a work.
The media industry did their homework well, anticipated the future issues, and lobbied through Congress a statute that tightly says these things -- without lots of people noticing or caring very much at the time.
Because the law was well crafted to cover the 321 Studios kind of situation, the court quite properly ruled in favor of the media companies; they caused the law to be written intentionally to allow them to do this sort of thing, and the only solution now is to ask Congress to amend the law.
I hope Congress does amend DCMA to once again allow legal copying of a work, and to prohibit once again only the SALE of unauthorized copies.
What is at issue is whether the individual citizens of the United States will allow the media companies to emplace these kinds of laws by lobbying Congress, or will the people request that the law be changed back again to allow individuals -- with or without help -- to make copies and not sell them.
An interesting note is that although the media companies try to sound as if the purpose of copyright law is to protect the artists and authors, it really is to protect the media companies -- the modern day equivalent of the Crown Printers of England -- in their government-granted monopoly for the sale of copies of certain works.
The monopoly was originally granted to printers for the purpose of allowing the Crown to CENSOR what individuals might print and say, an interesting history that dates to just after Martin Luther's becoming the first pamphleteer in history.
I recommend that anyone who wants a clearer idea of the origin of copyright law and its roots in censorship, see Gary North's excellent essay at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html
It is an enlightening read, for sure.
Best,
airtight