[halfbrite]

> She has a copy of it I got on google play for her which she can play on her tablet.

> So I pirate the movie (please don't arrest me, it's google's fault).

Is it pirated if you already own a legally valid license?

How about rips of blu-rays you own, which you solely use and do not intend to share? Is that pirating or using your legally owned product on a different medium?

[midoridensha]

>Is it pirated if you already own a legally valid license?

I imagine it depends on who you talk to. If you talk to the company lawyers, they'll say it's illegal and you need to pay up. If you talk to a different lawyer that believes in better IP rights, they'll tell you it's not illegal but hasn't been tested in a court of law.

Ultimately, the only way to know if something is illegal, in the US, is to do the possibly-illegal act, then get yourself sued for it (or worse, arrested, since some IP violations can be prosecuted criminally), so that it can be decided in a court of law whether it's actually illegal or not. Once a court precedent has been set, then we know if something is truly illegal or not. Though this can change if another case ends up with the court (usually a higher court) throwing out the precedent.

[jfoster]

Feels like there should be a precedent along these lines by now. Do these cases get settled so commonly that none covering this type of case have been ruled on yet?

[di4na]

There have been multiple. It is considered illegal**

** This is here to point out that it being illegal can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some steps of the process have not been covered. Like "is writing everywhere that i allow you to buy a thing or possess it but only give you a temporary licence to play it under TOS and EULA that you cannot physically read legal?"

[lozenge]

What constitutes this "type of case" and are you confident a judge won't create a new distinction separating this one from previous ones?

The most famous case decided in consumers' favor was about recording tapes from TV broadcasts to watch at a different time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Uni....

[jfoster]

You can make the argument that any precedent might not apply to a new case due to a distinction being made. The nature of precedents seems to be that they are a set of basic facts, a judgement, and only a guide as to how future cases might be considered. Of course every case is unique in some ways that may or may not matter.

[paraselene_]

"using your legally owned product on a different medium" You're refering to format shifting[1]. Legality will vary differently between jurisdictions, but there are rulings in the UK making it illegal for personal use so there's that.

Ripping blu-rays, most likely means getting around AACS which is probably illegal under DMCA. See 17 U.S. Code § 1201 and some rulings[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting [2] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/

[Izkata]

In the US, circumventing DRM includes "avoid" and "bypass", so I'd guess it does violate this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (though I wouldn't call it pirating).

[haroldp]

> How about rips of blu-rays you own, which you solely use and do not intend to share? Is that pirating or using your legally owned product on a different medium?

This is protected fair use. But distributing software to decrypt DVD DRM is illegal.

[Tepix]

Not sure if DeCSS is still illegal but the OP was talking about blu-rays and they are ... "less hacked".