Do you have a source for that because MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc established that even creating a copy in RAM is considered a "copy" under the Copyright Act and can be infringement.

▲

parineum 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's not an issue of where it's being copied, it's who's doing the copying.

Library Genesis has one copy. It then sends you one copy and keeps it's own. The entity that violated the _copy_right is the one that copied it, not the one with the copy.

▲

masfuerte 3 days ago | parent [-]

There are many copies made as the text travels from Library Genesis to Anthropic. This isn't just of theoretical interest. English law has specific copyright exemptions for transient copies made by internet routers, etc. It doesn't have exemptions for the transient copies made by end users such as Anthropic, and they are definitely infringing.

Of course, American law is different. But is it the case that copies made for the purpose of using illegally obtained works are not infringing?

▲

thaumasiotes 3 days ago | parent [-]

> But is it the case that copies made for the purpose of using illegally obtained works are not infringing?

Well, the question here is "who made the copy?"

If you advertise in seedy locations that you will send Xeroxed copies of books by mail order, and I order one, and you then send me the copy I ordered, how many of us have committed a copyright violation?

	▲	masfuerte 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Copyright law is literally about the copies. A xeroxed book is exactly one copy. Mailing and reading that book doesn't copy it any further. In contrast, you can't do anything with digital media without making another copy. > "Who made the copy?" This begs the question. With digital media everybody involved makes multiple copies.