There is something I call the "trifecta of /FAIL/ at web design" -- it consists of the use of fixed metric (aka px) fonts, fixed width layouts, and illegible color contrasts.
... and what's the FIRST thing I notice? The uselessly absurdly undersized px metric fonts on the page sending me diving for the zoom; which when I zoom the fixed width layout falls apart, in some browsers giving me sideways scroll, in others that bloated image rotator nonsense overlapping the content... and of course with so much light colored content the gray on gray in the header is hard to read, the dark gray on dark gray in the footer being completely illegible.
All three before I even look deeper at it. There's no logical document structure or heading orders, so on the whole -- From a design standpoint -- it is an inaccessible mess that should be thrown in the trash; no matter how "pretty" it is, it's effectively useless to a lot of users. Like myself...
Even the CSS - 4 stylesheets totalling 70k is double the largest you should need for an entire websites in terms of a screen target -- though it appears all but one your LINK have no media targets either, (that one being obvious copypasta and incomplete) calling into question if the developer understands what CSS is and how to use it.
Though the same could be said about the HTML in terms of developer knowledge, with the 72 validation errors. Apparantly people get upset when I use this word, but no other word explains this any better; GIBBERISH! Your HTML is GIBBERISH. From the incomplete malformed forms, nonsensical/nonexistent use of headings to create a document structure, to wrapping UL around non-list elements (without even having LI inside them), to abuse of definition lists for Christmas only knows what, to static presentation inlined in the markup with STYLE tags, to paragraphs around non-paragraph CDATA and elements, presentational images in the markup, absolute URI's for no reason other than to waste bandwidth...
OUCH? You've been sneaking by on THAT since 2003? Uhg... even then you were taken for a ride by someone who had no business making a website for a business.
I mean, if someone out there is calling themselves a developer, but don't know what's wrong with putting DT around multiple DD, or using UL to wrap just CDATA, they need to do us all a favor, back the **** away from the keyboard and take up something a bit less detail oriented like macrame.
As to your TITLE and META, yeah, you've got problems there too.
The TITLE is indeed too long -- and it reeks of some SEO-tard having given you bad advice in the past. The TITLE tag exists for the purpose of labelling the window or tab in the browser, or as the text for a link to the page for another site. Good rule of thumb is if you can't say it in 32 characters, it probably doesn't belong inside TITLE. It should first and foremost say what page of the site they are on, and what site they are on. The ones on your subpages aren't bad -- but the home page? Gut that down to just "CloneDVD Official Site" or something like that.
Your META -- yikes. Let's look at the important two:
KEYWORDS -- it's called keyWORDS, not keysentences, not keyphrases, keyWORDS... a LOT of developers (and even search engines) claim that keywords doesn't do anything anymore, but that's actually a load of bull. It still works if you bother following the RULES of using them that people have outright ignored out of ignorance, apathy and wishful thinking since they were introduced.
Those rules being pretty simple:
1) seven or eight words, compound words or proper names
2) that do not repeat the same word over and over
3) that exist as CDATA between <BODY></BODY>
4) separated by comma's
5) totalling no more than 128 characters.
Which is why that train wreck of a META[keywords] you have there is pretty much guaranteed to be ignored, as it violates all of that except #4.
There is little reason for that to be more than:
<meta name="keywords" content="dvd, copy, movie, converter, rip, backup, mp4, iphone" />
Unless you are bound and determined to have that META ignored, and possibly even get yourself slapped down in the search rankings for abuse.
DESCRIPTION -- your description META isn't too bad on the other hand, but remember what that meta is for; it's SOLE reason for existing is to be a description of the page shown under the LINK in a SERP. (I'm using SERP in the CORRECT tense, the page on which your site shows up on the search; most people seem to think it means the ranking POSITION, which is an entirely different thing!). That's why one or two sentences of natural language is the preferred approach. I'd probably swing an axe at the "offical site" text as that's redundant to the title which will be shown right above it!
I would have that worded something more like:
"The Best DVD Copy & Clone Software, able to process DVD movies to DVDR, AVI, MP4 and other popular formats for devices like the iPhone, iPod, iPad, Android, PSP, etc. Our ripping and conversion software can remove copy protections to allow copying, burning and rips of all DVDs."
Really though, that whole page is a laundry list of how not to build a website, and really needs to be pitched in the trash and started over from scratch; in the age of responsive layout it's not an acceptable piece of work for a business site -- as it's missing all the stepping stones of accessibility we've been told websites should have for a decade and a half.
Laughably I probably would have told you the same thing ten years ago, the code just reeks of "HTML, what's that?"
Sorry if that seems harsh, but the truth often is... though I suspect you had similar suspicions, hence your asking for a review of a site that by your own admission is a decade old.