> How is using perplexity any more so making a copy than your browser is making a copy Both are, the difference is that your browser doesn't transfer the copy

> How is using perplexity any more so making a copy than your browser is making a copy Both are, the difference is that your browser doesn't transfer the copy to a new legal entity after modifying it. Rather the browser is under the control of the end user and the end user owns the data (not the copyright, but the actual instance of the data) the whole time. > Your logic would also imply that viewing a website through a VPN not operated by yourself would require the VPN operator to have a redistribution license for all the content on the website which is not the case. It doesn't because the VPN doesn't modify it, and the law explicitly distinguishes between the two cases and allows for transferring in the case of exact copies (provided you transfer all rights). I left this part of section 117 out because it wasn't relevant, but I'll quote it here > Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. [And then the portion of the paragraph I quoted above] Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner. > How do you think google is able to scrape whatever they like and redistribute summaries of the pages they have visited without consulting everyone who has ever made a website for a redistribution license. A fair use argument, which I think is less likely (and I'd go so far as to say unlikely) to apply to a service like perplexity.ai but is ultimately a judgement call that will be made by the legal system and like all fair use arguments has no clear boundaries.