[derekp7]

The word "copyright" implies the right to make copies. Copyright laws (in various jurisdictions) also include language regarding performance of a copyrighted work, but that is a separate issue.

Digital media is interesting, as when you receive a copy of it on a physical medium, it is basically unusable unless you make a copy of it (i.e., putting the disk in a computer and copying the contents to computer memory). So to enable people to actually use that copyrighted digital work, the copyright holder grants an end user the right to load (copy) the digital work into computer memory (via the shrink-wrapped license agreement) for the purpose of executing / watching / reading it. And of course typically things like computer programs are installed (copied) onto a computer's storage device, which the license also typically grants permission to do.

Now it could be written into copyright law that if the normal method of using a work is to copy it into working memory, or load it into storage on a computer, that the law would explicitly allow that (or, as an alternative, the courts could allow that via "fair use" doctrine). But instead, the law, courts, and copyright holders are perfectly fine with this ambiguous grey area so that they can reserve a number of rights via the shrink-wrap software license.

[slededit]

Transitory storage falls under fair use. This has been tested in court for things like internet caching.

[Retric]

That's a rather tenuous connection. EX: "Transitory storage" does not count as a copy.

You need to make a copy of a book on the back of your Retna to read it, however nobody calls that copying.

It's easy to argue that playing a DVD is not actually copping the DVD as at no point does a DVD player copy the full DVD. Without a durable copy it's no more copping than the back of your Retna.

[ben_w]

I recall there was a court case about that. A copy of a program in system memory was deemed non-infringement because it was necessary for use of the software, however (certain classes of) modified copies were unlawful. I believe this is the precedent used to take down cheating apps for (e.g.) World of Warcraft.

[xbkingx]

From what I understand, it usually comes down to whether copy protection mechanisms were circumvented in order to make the copy and whether the copy was transmitted to a nonlicense holder.

So, making an image of a DVD isn't illegal, but sending that image to someone that doesn't own a license is. But, ripping that disk to mp4 is illegal if any form of protection is in place, no matter how weak.

Of course, ripping to mp4 and then sending it to someone is double illegal, which makes it legal. I should mention now that IANAL.