Section 117 is irrelevant — it grants archival rights to end-users for computer programs. It doesn't make claims about servers or legal third parties. (Althoug

Section 117 is irrelevant — it grants archival rights to end-users for computer programs. It doesn't make claims about servers or legal third parties. (Although it is relevant in disproving your point: I can pay an archival service to back up data I legally have the right to view, even if the backup is then on their server, and despite the service being a different legal entity than me. And they can give me a copy of it later, too.) > You could conceivably make "ublock origin except it's a proxy run by a third party and we modify the website on the proxy", I'd agree that that has the same problem as a service like perplexity (though a different fair use analysis and I'm not sure what way that would go). So, running a local LLM version of Perplexity that does exactly the same thing is legal, but Perplexity is illegal, because "a third party legal entity has the data"?