Is It Impossible to Use Plex, Jellyfin Etc. ”Legally”?

[Altefier]

Every time I've been meaning to watch a movie and couldn't find it on Prime or maybe Netflix I just put it aside as a "I'll watch it later" thing. Today I sat down and tried to research where to purchase movies DRM-free instead, and it seems there are basically zero options? At least digitally, for sure.

 

I know that's why people tend to say "I always buy physical" and I get that, it's superior insofar that the company can't legally barge into your home and take your purchased DVDs and Blu-Rays away. But should you ever damage your disk, there goes the movie, and you can't put it on Plex or Jellyfin anyway.

 

I know a lot of people will rip the movie from the disk, but that's the thing. Most, if not all(?, Content Scramble System - Wikipedia) of them still have DRM and in many western countries breaking the copy protection is illegal no matter what. That means you might as well buy the movie digitally and then pirate it or remove the DRM from your digital purchase somehow. Legally speaking, that amounts to the exact same thing.

 

But this totally baffles me... with no way to purchase movies DRM-free, does that really mean most people who use Plex or Jellyfin for watching/streaming their movies are doing so illegally, technically speaking? Is that truly the situation we're in?

[Corrupt_Liberty]

The legality of ripping your own dvds and blurays is still a gray area. It's never actually been tested in court. I get most of my content from disks that I rip myself. I buy used most of the time and that saves a lot of money. I've also made bulk purchases from closing rental stores. 

 

That being said I do pirate the occasional video. If it's not available on disk for a reasonable price then I don't mind bending the law. You just have to do what your conscience allows you to do. 

 

Edit:  As far a breaking DRM to copy it, they can kiss my ass. I have to break DRM just to play dvds in linux because no 'legal' player exists. 

[TetraSky]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:18 PM, Altefier said:

But this totally baffles me... with no way to purchase movies DRM-free, does that really mean most people who use Plex or Jellyfin for watching/streaming their movies are doing so illegally, technically speaking? Is that truly the situation we're in?

Yes, pretty much.

In Canada you can legally make backups and copies for personal usage. BUT. If the work has some sort of digital lock (DRM) that would normally prevent copying... It is deemed illegal.

Considering everything sold these days has digital locks... You are limited to old school movies on VHS and the likes. Anything newer is not just technically, but actually is, illegal.

 

That said... No one will show up at your door for it if you're using it as a personal video vault at home. It is mostly aimed at people who share and sell these works with others.

[Altefier]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:33 PM, TetraSky said:

In Canada you can legally make backups and copies for personal usage. BUT. If the work has some sort of digital lock (DRM) that would normally prevent copying... It is deemed illegal.

Yeah, pretty much how it is across Europe as well, and the United States I believe
 

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:31 PM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

Edit:  As far a breaking DRM to copy it, they can kiss my ass. I have to break DRM just to play dvds in linux because no 'legal' player exists. 

It's not that I disagree but that I'm astounded virtually everyone nowadays is technically breaking the law just to have reasonable options to watch their purchased content

[jaslion]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:18 PM, Altefier said:

That means you might as well buy the movie digitally and then pirate it or remove the DRM from your digital purchase somehow. Legally speaking, that amounts to the exact same thing.

Its why you do the age old way of:

 

"Its mine ill do what I want with it"

 

So the obvious thing to do is get the movie whatever way you want to!

[LAwLz]

Why is being DRM-free such an important thing to you? If you want access to a particular film, you have to agree to their terms, even if those terms are inconvenient to you. I get the impression (and correct me if I am wrong) that some people including you might be trying to make the argument that if the legal options aren't appealing to them they are justified in going the illegal route.

 

I totally agree with you that it is a frustrating situation though. There is, in many countries, no simple, fully legal path to "own" a movie digitally in the same way you own a Blu-ray. Physical media gives you some level of control, but as you mentioned, ripping it comes with its own legal gray areas. I think it's a flawed system but the current reality is that most Plex/Jellyfin users are technically breaking copyright law if they rip their own discs. But with that being said, I suspect that 90% of Plex users don't buy and rip their own movies, even if they pretend like they do. They probably pirate stuff without any money going to the creator.

 

For DRM-free purchases, options are limited. Vimeo On Demand, Bandcamp (for indie films), and a few niche distributors offer DRM-free files, but mainstream films? Pretty much non-existent. Until the industry rethinks its stance on ownership, users will have to pick between physical discs or accepting the limits of digital licenses.

 

I think it's worth pointing out however that the removal of DRM protection on physical discs is technically illegal, the likelihood of someone coming after you for it is extremely slim. I am not allowed to encourage you to do something illegal, but if I were in your situation I think I would try to do the right thing and buy the disc and rip it. Either that or just give up on the DRM-free requirement. I used to hoard movies but I've found that there is a huge amount of movies I will never rewatch, so renting it on for example Youtube, Amazon or Apple TV is very appealing. No need to buy a bunch of drives to keep expanding my ever-growing collection of movies and I don't need to waste time ripping it either.

[Spotty]

They're really just media players. The media they play is up to you to provide. You could make your own videos and watch them with Plex/Jellyfin, I guess...

 

Plex does have an advertisement supported streaming service. https://watch.plex.tv/on-demand

You can also add your streaming services to Plex as a source and use the Plex app to discover content across multiple streaming services and your own library - although it doesn't actually play through plex, it just opens up the streaming service app and it plays through their player. https://support.plex.tv/articles/discover/

[Needfuldoer]

Like emulators, Plex and Jellyfin themselves aren't technically the problem. They're perfectly legal to install and run, and at least some of the streaming accessible through Plex is legit. The problem is always the content; most people fill their libraries with downloaded or ripped commercial content, and that's the copyright infringement.

 

You can always draw content from the public domain, or watch content distributed under a permissive license. You can watch Steamboat Willie and Big Buck Bunny all you want with a clean conscience.

 

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:33 PM, TetraSky said:

Considering everything sold these days has digital locks... You are limited to old school movies on VHS and the likes.

Commercial VHS releases have copy protection too.

 

 

[Altefier]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:36 PM, jaslion said:

Its why you do the age old way of:

 

"Its mine ill do what I want with it"

 

So the obvious thing to do is get the movie whatever way you want to!

Been doing it that way all my life but in recent times I see more and more people get angry when you do things like emulate games, for example. In part because of recent legal actions from Nintendo where they basically argue you can't legally emulate their games because doing so requires breaking copy protection which is illegal and I see more and more people parrot that. I don't frequently watch movies so I was surprised to find movies have basically the same problem and that stuff like Plex and Jellyfin is so popular yet using it is not legally in the clear

 

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:44 PM, LAwLz said:

Why is being DRM-free such an important thing to you? If you want access to a particular film, you have to agree to their terms, even if those terms are inconvenient to you.

But didn't you answer your own question? Convenience is important to me, yes...

And also ownership, because if a company tells me I "buy" something from them but they can just take it away any time they want, well, I have some issues with that let's just say.

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:44 PM, LAwLz said:

I get the impression (and correct me if I am wrong) that some people including you might be trying to make the argument that if the legal options aren't appealing to them they are justified in going the illegal route.

[...]

I am not allowed to encourage you to do something illegal, but if I were in your situation I think I would try to do the right thing and buy the disc and rip it.

I am a bit confused by this. First of all because I never said anything related to justification, I just stated facts as far as I know... but that aside, it's kinda weird to note that I might be trying to make the argument that doing something illegal is justified if the legal options are stupid, and then later say buying the disk then ripping it (which is illegal) is the "right thing". It's not a contradiction, but it makes it difficult for me to understand what your stance is

 

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:49 PM, Spotty said:

They're really just media players. The media they play is up to you to provide. You could make your own videos and watch them with Plex/Jellyfin, I guess...

To be clear, I am not suggesting or implying that Plex/Jellyfin themselves are illegal, but that the (common) use case itself is. No one is gonna install Plex to watch YouTube... or Steamboat Willie all day

[Avocado Diaboli]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:18 PM, Altefier said:

But this totally baffles me... with no way to purchase movies DRM-free, does that really mean most people who use Plex or Jellyfin for watching/streaming their movies are doing so illegally, technically speaking? Is that truly the situation we're in?

Probably, yes. But on the other hand, do you really give a damn about the rights you're violating here? Because I sure don't. If I bought the movie, I consider that copy mine to do with as I want and I have little sympathy for people defending a status quo that has been established by corporate conglomerates that have paid for laws on the books that tell me what I get to do with the media I own. Heck, the fun thing about living in Switzerland is actually that it's completely legal for me to download movies and music online for my own use, as long as I don't redistribute it. So to me, this isn't even a discussion about legality, but morals. 

 

So, is it morally worse if someone uses Plex and therefore breaks the law by bypassing copy protection for the discs they own than the draconian DRM protections and clauses that make you legally not own the things you paid for? I know which side of that question I'm on. To me, a law has no merit if it is immoral and people who defend practices by pointing at the law as if that's a valid defense in and of itself lack critical thinking abilities.

[ToboRobot]

Technically, no.

Effectively, for most people? Yarr!

[Altefier]

  On 12/20/2024 at 11:15 PM, Avocado Diaboli said:

Probably, yes. But on the other hand, do you really give a damn about the rights you're violating here?

No, I'm just shocked to learn how much movies are in the same boats as video games. It's about time we get better consumer protection laws

[Erioch]

No.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

  On 12/20/2024 at 11:15 PM, Avocado Diaboli said:

Probably, yes. But on the other hand, do you really give a damn about the rights you're violating here? Because I sure don't. If I bought the movie, I consider that copy mine to do with as I want and I have little sympathy for people defending a status quo that has been established by corporate conglomerates that have paid for laws on the books that tell me what I get to do with the media I own. Heck, the fun thing about living in Switzerland is actually that it's completely legal for me to download movies and music online for my own use, as long as I don't redistribute it. So to me, this isn't even a discussion about legality, but morals. 

 

So, is it morally worse if someone uses Plex and therefore breaks the law by bypassing copy protection for the discs they own than the draconian DRM protections and clauses that make you legally not own the things you paid for? I know which side of that question I'm on. To me, a law has no merit if it is immoral and people who defend practices by pointing at the law as if that's a valid defense in and of itself lack critical thinking abilities.

Expand  

^^^

theres a difference between a person and a corporation after all and as long as the corporation isnt in dire straights or something because of piracy i honestly could give less of a shit

 

and heck i do some emulation myself mainly pokemon games that my dumbass got almost to the end (yellow, crystal) or halfway through (emerald) then lost the save file (twice in the case of emerald) alongside gt2 and ill probably be playing some gt4 once i get a better phone or i get a gpu

 

 

[Sauron]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:31 PM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

The legality of ripping your own dvds and blurays is still a gray area. It's never actually been tested in court.

In some countries the law does say you can't break DRM under any circumstance, so tested or not it's pretty clear which way such a trial would go.

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:18 PM, Altefier said:

But this totally baffles me... with no way to purchase movies DRM-free, does that really mean most people who use Plex or Jellyfin for watching/streaming their movies are doing so illegally, technically speaking? Is that truly the situation we're in?

Well, kind of..? You can watch your own home videos, or anything that is distributed under creative commons licenses, but the vast majority of commercial films are only distributed through DRM protected media and therefore can't be easily streamed through plex unless you break said DRM, potentially breaking the law depending on your country.

  On 12/20/2024 at 11:22 PM, Altefier said:

No, I'm just shocked to learn how much movies are in the same boats as video games. It's about time we get better consumer protection laws

Videogames are much better off to be honest, aside from many being available DRM free there's also a plethora of open source/free software games. A lot of music is also available DRM free. It's mostly films and television shows that insist on controlling how you are allowed to watch media you bought.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

I use Plex/Infuse for personal legally obtained 4k bluray rips, but it is still a "gray area". That is probably why apple will never allow HDMI passthrough for audio on the Apple TV 4K. The only use for it is blu ray/4k rips 

[jaslion]

  On 12/20/2024 at 11:01 PM, Altefier said:

more people get angry when you do things like emulate games, for example. In part because of recent legal actions from Nintendo where they basically argue you can't legally emulate their games because doing so requires breaking copy protection which is illegal and I see more and more people parrot that.

Simple answer: Skill issue

[Donut417]

  On 12/20/2024 at 10:18 PM, Altefier said:

mean most people who use Plex or Jellyfin for watching/streaming their movies are doing so illegally, technically speaking? Is that truly the situation we're in?

Yes we are all breaking the law. However, you only get thrown in jail for distributing copy righted content, so the most they can do is sue you. But ripping movies in the privacy of your own home, it’s impossible for the powers that be to know. 

[rikitikitavi]

Yes, it is possible to LEGALY use these services - you are welcome to use it for all of your personal family videos and all the videos you bought from indies who give you DRM-free copies as a thank you for your support in their kickstarter campaign:) Isn't this the usual usage for Plex and such?!

 

Legality of breaking DRM seems to be more related to the (commercial) distribution of such content rather than the personal consumption (personal speculation).

[Donut417]

  On 12/21/2024 at 10:13 AM, rikitikitavi said:

Isn't this the usual usage for Plex and such?!

LOL.

 

On a side note Plex does offer OTA DVR capabilities and they do offer free streaming of some shows and movies with ads of course.

[rikitikitavi]

  On 12/21/2024 at 10:19 AM, Donut417 said:

LOL.

I assure you, the legality of my family videos are ...legal... like the one where our whole family went to the cinema to watch the latest Avengers... unfortunately it is dark in the theatre room and you can only see the movie screen on the video... oh well... I'll keep it anyway...

[LogicalDrm]

There's interesting hole in our copyright protection system. It does have same yadayada with you can copy, but not break as with many others. But two other things also. You can copy, if the software you are using includes DRM breaking tools. As using separate software just for breaking DRM is illegal. You can also make legal copy of any live broadcast. This would include satellite channels since you are already paying for them, not breaking any protection.

[LAwLz]

  On 12/21/2024 at 6:12 PM, LogicalDrm said:

You can copy, if the software you are using includes DRM breaking tools.

Source?

[Donut417]

  On 12/21/2024 at 6:12 PM, LogicalDrm said:

You can also make legal copy of any live broadcast. This would include satellite channels since you are already paying for them, not breaking any protection.

For now. ATSC 3.0 allows for encryption of channels and them limiting on your recordings. As in you have to be internet connected to authorize you to watch recorded content. It's utter bull shit. 

[Needfuldoer]

  On 12/22/2024 at 2:19 AM, Donut417 said:

For now. ATSC 3.0 allows for encryption of channels and them limiting on your recordings. As in you have to be internet connected to authorize you to watch recorded content. It's utter bull shit. 

So far, ATSC 3.0's been a wet fart. Consumers don't know what it can do (if they're aware of it at all), and the stations are only rolling it out begrudgingly.

 

I think it's only going to see mass adoption in the US if the FCC forces everyone's hand by taking away even more OTA spectrum to sell to phone carriers, so there isn't enough left to give every station its own 6 mhz band in which to run ATSC 1.0.

 

Technical yammering that doesn't really matter to getting the point across:

  Reveal hidden contents

Back in ye olde analog days, TV stations each got 6 mhz of spectrum. That was enough to transmit one analog SD channel with a stereo audio path.

 

ATSC 1.0 takes that same 6 mhz and shoves up to 20 megabits/sec worth of MPEG-2 through it. Each subchannel on a transmitter can be encoded at just about any bitrate, so long as all of them put together are less than that 20 megabit limit. (That's why some channels look good, but some channels are heavily compressed but have numerous subchannels.) There can even be multiple stations running on the same transmitter, because "channel numbers" aren't correlated to the RF frequency anymore. They're software-defined (PSIP) labels that exist for the benefit of humans.

 

ATSC 3.0 shaves that spectrum down to 5.5 mhz, with the extra barrier being reserved for an analog FM audio transmission (to act as an emergency fallback). We can cram far more video streams into that same 20 to 50 effective megabits/sec space though, because it compresses the video with HEVC. 

 

But ATSC 3.0 isn't backward-compatible, and half of its features rely on the receiving equipment having an Internet connection. That alone makes it a no-go for reception in the sticks.