The law tries to make this distinction by specifying that copies have to be fixed into a tangible medium to be infringing. The problem is that the "RAM copy doc

The law tries to make this distinction by specifying that copies have to be fixed into a tangible medium to be infringing. The problem is that the "RAM copy doctrine", as it's known, states that RAM is a sufficiently fixed copy into a sufficiently tangible medium to qualify. This doctrine has been used against scrapers repeatedly, as in Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc. (https://casetext.com/case/ticketmaster-llc-v-rmg-technologies-3 https://casetext.com/case/ticketmaster-llc-v-rmg-technologie...) : > The copies of webpages stored automatically in a computer's cache or > random access memory ("RAM") upon a viewing of the webpage fall within > the Copyright Act's definition of "copy." See, e.g., MAI Systems Corp. > v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993) ("We recognize > that these authorities are somewhat troubling since they do not specify > that a copy is created regardless of whether the software is loaded into > the RAM, the hard disk or the read only memory (`ROM'). However, since > we find that the copy created in the RAM can be `perceived, reproduced, > or otherwise communicated,' we hold that the loading of software into > the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.") See also Twentieth > Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 478 F.Supp. 2d 607, > 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (agreeing with the "numerous courts [that] have held > that the transmission of information through a computer's random access > memory or RAM . . . creates a `copy' for purposes of the Copyright Act," > and citing cases.) Thus, copies of ticketmaster.com webpages > automatically stored on a viewer's computer are "copies" within the > meaning of the Copyright Act.