The issue isn't the law. Taping films and ripping CDs are already questionably legal - I tend to think they come under the heading of "technically illegal but rarely enforced". The issue is misplaced technological enforcement of the law.

For example, I have a CD-writer. If I so wish, I can use the CD-writer to copy CDs illegally, or distribute warez, or whatever.

Alternatively, I can back up my last 2 years' work on CD; and there's no technological way to stop me copying stuff illegally which won't stop me doing that as well. I like having a spare copy or two of my documents so I can restore from the backup if my hard disk or OS dies. There's the principle of the thing too - I wrote what I'm backing up, so I hold the copyright, so I shouldn't have a piece of hardware telling me I can't give myself (or others for that matter) permission to copy it.

For that matter, my computer can store and process any data, given enough time, memory and disk space. This is, after all, the whole point of a computer. Trying to stop computers processing certain data (e.g. that dumb proposed law about compulsory copyright enforcement modules in all hardware and software) is completely missing the point. If, say, a chunk of Seti@home's incoming data, or a chunk of company's finances, or whatever, happens to look like a copyright enforcement "watermark", should they be prevented from processing it? And what sort of performance hit would that have to cause, realistically?

People using computers have a responsibility to obey copyright law, just like people using photocopiers or typewriters or a biro and a piece of paper do. The computer or photocopier or typewriter or biro can't take that responsibility for them, because that would destroy its usefulness. The fact that I can infringe copyright with my pen and a piece of paper doesn't mean there should be an anti-copying module attached to it. If the user breaks the law, that's their choice and they know what the consequences are.

An example of where the misplaced technological fix has happened is in some portable audio players which use their own proprietary format. They allow you to copy to the player, but not from it (except by plugging it into an analogue recorder and pressing Play on one and Record on the other, but someone seems to have missed that one). In general, this is reasonable and doesn't interfere with the player's use, but if a band record themselves playing using one of these things, do they really want it refusing to give them the digital audio in the interests of enforcing their own copyright?