JVC, I don't see you doing the original research required for such a task. I'm currently undertaking my own study of the Australian "Playstation Case", and I'll be explaining the conclusion of that landmark case in due time (at de-aacs.com) - the major noteworthy points that I've identified so far is that the court determined that Sony had failed to demonstrate that anything in PS2 hardware, or software constituted as a legal T.P.M. (Technological Protection Measure) - citing the so-called legally-restricting purpose of TMP's - which is to prevent unlawful activity, and to protect the legal rights of the right's holder. The High Court therefore concluded that a Modchip installed into a Playstation 2 game console did not circumvent any T.P.M.'s as defined and protected under the Australian copyright act - and once I've concluded studying the case, I'll be able to further explain the implications of the precedent as it relates to "similar technologies" employed in, for instance, DVDs and BDs; and therefore further assess from a spectator's point of view whether or not one would reasonably consider that CSS or AACS legally constitutes a TPM.
As far as the matter is concerned in the USA, well you should investigate this yourself, and produce your detailed results for all to see, that would be very helpful. As far as I can so far tell, the USA is happy to simply label any technology claimed by its creators to be a legally-binding TMP as such, and doesn't (or wouldn't) in court challenge whether or not a technology is a legitimate TPM or not. This distinction is important, as it relates as to whether or not a copyright holder can simply "protect their rights", or if they can impose upon your "ordinary rights". That is to say, for instance, to release on a Nintendo Wii console a game, you must license the product through Nintendo so that it can be digitally signed. However, a Modchip may allow a game, or piece of software to run on that same hardware without being digitally signed - this would mean that someone could release a piece of software, or a game that is not digitally signed ("homebrew" software); and they would not be obligated to pay a licensing fee to do this - and it would not be illegal.
Now the same can be said with Blyray and AACS - it is mandatory to include this on the disc to release it commercially as a Blyray Disc - however, you could legally release a movie without AACS encryption so long as you do not use the Blyray Disc logo or trademark, or any other associated "rights". You would basically be manufacturing a disc that you're claiming is "Blyray compatible" - like the DVD+R format - it couldn't carry the DVD or DVD-R logo, but its designers thought it to be "DVD compatible". The DVD consortium were not able to sue the DVD+R creators! Since they did not breach any of their rights.
To post back purely on-topic - in no situation do you have an inherent legal "right" to copy a movie that is licensed for private home-viewing. Some countries/jurisdictions allow certain explicit "rights", and other's don't. It is incorrect to assume that just because you don't have a legal right this makes it "illegal", and it is also incorrect to assume that just because you have a legal right to do with the format, it doesn't mean it applies on an individual basis - after all the copyright holder has rights that come first.
Copyright is covered under civil law, which means if there is not currently a law making an act illegal, then doing so is probably not illegal until such a law comes into effect; and that law would be considered to take effect "from that point on", and not make previous acts illegal. The USA's laws are pretty clear in making any act of circumventing copy protection illegal, and are the most restrictive of any of their kind anywhere in the world. They also prosecute individual offenses in a way never seen here in Australia.
That is to say, if you (as an Australian) took a trip to Asia and came back with 500 pirated DVDs that you purchased while in Asia, and you're going through Australian customs and they see the movies, they'll say something like "wow, nice collection, these are some great movies!" And you'll be allowed to keep your infringing works. However, if you purchase them online, and they are posted to you, and customs opens them, they'll say "piracy" and will seize/destroy them then and there. If they're in your possession, and you're not offering them for sale then the law doesn't particularly care. If, however, you come back with German bestiality then the DVDs will be seized, as happened to Martin Bryant (well that was before DVD). All I'm saying here is maybe if an American contacts the FBI they will come and take their copies and destroy them (you haven't supplied any evidence though) - but if an Australian contacts the AFP then they'll say "well we only want them if you want to file a report about where you bought them, and they were bought within Australia, otherwise they're not our problem".