[yakak]

I think that is far more literal a focus on copying than the courts have, they tend to think in terms of whether you are expanding the number of copies.

I think courts sided with an artist that destroyed an original in transfers making one new work. I think they would also tend to side with firmware users that move/modify copies but don't expand the number of production units running derived copies of the code.

[bluGill]

More importantly courts are smart enough to realize that the act of copying a webpage to various caches on internet routers, then to memory of your computer, and your browser's cache files is not copyright infringement even though copies were made. It would be if you saved the source code in your browser and shared the webpage with others - but even then depending on details it might be called fair use if such a thing came to court.