[pfannkuchen]

I always thought that ad copy also came from copy as in copy some data. Like it's the words that get copied when the media is replicated for distribution, as opposed to words that are for some internal communication purpose.

[singlow]

The use of the noun copy probably came from the act of copying, but both uses predated the word copyright, so that doesn't really help answer the question.

[pfannkuchen]

So I guess the relevant distinction I see is whether the owner of the copyright controls the act of copying a string or controls the string itself in any artifact anywhere. We’re saying that if they meant copy the verb it’s the former and if they meant copy the noun it’s the latter. Is that right?

I see what you mean about it not helping to answer the question in a direct way.

Where I’m coming from is I think that if copy and copy were of a different origin completely, like from French vs Greek or something, and the homophone-ness (homophonity?) was a coincidence, then I could see the authors of the law using the much less common industry term without considering whether people would get confused.

But if one refers to the other, it seems implausibly confusing for them to use the way less common meaning and not expect anyone to get confused in a way that would change the meaning of the law. Or was the copyright law written by the characters of mad men??? Seems more like an overreach by certain media publishers.