> Thus "I have this bit pattern as part of a bit enumeration" is different, to the legal system, than "I have this bit pattern because I specifically created it

> Thus "I have this bit pattern as part of a bit enumeration" is different, to the legal system, than "I have this bit pattern because I specifically created it". Back in the Napster days, there was a company (maybe mp3.com or something? Google tells me yes!) that would let you get high-quality encoded mp3s of your CDs by downloading their program, putting your CD into the hard drive, and it would read enough of the CD to verify that that was the CD you had, then give you access to their own encoded version of it. The idea being, you own the CD; you have a right in the US to rip it & encode it; so therefore you have a right to this mp3. They were sued by the record labels (naturally), and lost in court; because the court made a distinction between the copy that mp3.com had of the CD and the copy that an individual could have made. mp3.com were violating copyright because they were distributing their own copy, even though the bits were identical to the copy their customers already owned. So along the same lines: "I have this bit pattern because I copied it from mp3.com's copy of a CD" is different, legally, than "I have this bit pattern because I copied it from my own CD". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co....