[6gvONxR4sf7o]

You skipped quotes about the other important side:

> But Alsup drew a firm line when it came to piracy.

> "Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library," Alsup wrote. "Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic's piracy."

That is, he ruled that

- buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use

- pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

[pier25]

> buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use

So Suno would only really need to buy the physical albums and rip them to be able to generate music at an industrial scale?

[conradev]

Yes! Training and generation are fair use. You are free to train and generate whatever you want in your basement for whatever purpose you see fit. Build a music collection, go ham.

If the output from said model uses the voice of another person, for example, we already have a legal framework in place for determining if it is infringing on their rights, independent of AI.

Courts have heard cases of individual artists copying melodies, because melodies themselves are copyrightable: https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2020/02/every-possible-melod...

Copyright law is a lot more nuanced than anyone seems to have the attention span for.

[pier25]

> Yes!

But Suno is definitely not training models in their basement for fun.

They are a private company selling music, using music made by humans to train their models, to replace human musicians and artists.

We'll see what the courts say but that doesn't sound like fair use.

[conradev]

My understanding is that Suno does not sell music, but instead makes a tool for musicians to generate music and sells access to this tool.

The law doesn't distinguish between basement and cloud – it's a service. You can sell access to the service without selling songs to consumers.

[pier25]

That's like arguing that a restaurant doesn't sell food because it sells the service of cooking it.

[tekknik]

Look up what a cloud kitchen is.

[conradev]

The restaurant is not responsible for E. coli if it’s found, are they? Just cooking it out of the food

Suno can’t prevent humans from copying other humans, it can only make sure that the direct output of its system isn’t infringing.

[immibis]

They charge you by the amount of music you get from them. That's selling music. Selling a tool would be if they charge you once, you download the tool, and you can use it on your computer to generate as much music as you want to pay electricity for.

[conradev]

I can’t buy the music you generate using Suno, though, unless you take action to list it somewhere for sale.

[musicale]

We don't infringe - we just sell a service that enables users to create infringing works on demand.

[freejazz]

Sure, but if you are just essentially making a copyright infringement tool, and then selling it to people so they can use it to infringe, and then they go and use it to infringe, you're a contributory infringer. Not saying this is exactly what Suno is doing, but just pointing out that you can be an infringer without "selling songs to consumers"

[conradev]

When you use a DAW to recreate a favorite song for learning, should the DAW show a warning that you’re infringing on a copyrighted melody? Should it let you make it? Export it? You promise the DAW it’s for personal use? It’s only a matter of time until this stuff is in DAWs.

When a general computer using agent recreates songs in Logic Pro in high fidelity, then what?

It’s called Fair Use for a reason – we let humans Use things generally and ask them to be Fair.

Or we can go in the direction of movies and TV where screenshots of protected content show up blank on my iPhone. Just in case someone wanted to, god forbid, clip the show.

[johnnyanmac]

That doesn't seem to track in my mind. So you can't sell music but you can sell 10 second snippets of music you pirated? It doesn't math out.

But i guess I'm not surprised that 2025 has little respect for artists.

[pyman]

What does "fair use" even mean in a world where models can memorise and remix every book and song ever written? Are we erasing ownership?

The problem is, copyright law wasn't written for machines. It was written for humans who create things.

In the case of songs (or books, paintings, etc), only humans and companies can legally own copyright, a machine can't. If an AI-powered tool generates a song, there’s no author in the legal sense, unless the person using the tool claims authorship by saying they operated the tool.

So we're stuck in a grey zone: the input is human, the output is AI generated, and the law doesn't know what to do with that.

For me the real debate is: Do we need new rules for non-human creation?

[markhahn]

why are you saying "memorize"? are people training AIs to regurgitate exact copies? if so, that's just copying. if they return something that is not a literal copy of the whole work, then there is established caselaw about how much is permitted. some clearly is, but not entire works.

when you buy a book, you are not acceding to a license to only ever read it with human eyes, forbearing to memorize it, never to quote it, never to be inspired by it.

[GuB-42]

If, as a human artist, I decide to train myself on the discography of a famous artist, then produce songs in his style and sell them for cheap so that others don't have to pay for the original artist, then I am sure it is fair use. It is done all the time.

Now, what if instead of training myself using real instruments, I train my AI and do the same. Is it different?

It is complicated, but there are many arguments in favor of fair use, probably more than they are against but as you say, let's the courts decide.

But in any case, piracy is illegal in every case. As a human, it is illegal for me to use pirate copies, whether it is for training myself as a musician, for training my AI, or for simply listening.

[musicale]

> Copyright law is a lot more nuanced than anyone seems to have the attention span for.

Copyright is probably the wrong body of law for regulating AI companies.

[itronitron]

If it's fair use to train a model, that doesn't necessarily imply that the model can be legally used to generate anything.

[pier25]

I've been reading a bit more about this. The training might not be considered fair use if it's not considered transformative.

Claude has been considered transformative given it's not really meant to generate books but Suno or Midjourney are absolutely in another category.

[markhahn]

really? so Suno or Midjourney can produce literal copies of works they were trained on?

[bongodongobob]

Well I've been able to get Suno to do Beatles covers. It only works maybe 1/20 times, but you can do it. It's not an exact replica either, but you can get the same chords and melodies as the original.

[protocolture]

Well there was that legal company who trained an LLM on their oppositions legal documents and then generated their own. I dont think inputs or outputs were ruled legal in that regard.

But as long as the model isnt outputting infringing works theres not really any issue there either.

[make3]

this is funny and potentially accurate

[kelnos]

Not sure we can infer that (or anything) about Suno from this ruling. The judge here said that Anthropic's usage was extremely transformative. Would Suno's also be considered that way?

Anthropic doesn't take books and use them to train a model that is intended to generate new books. (Perhaps it could do that, to some extent, but that's no its [sole] purpose.)

But Suno would be taking music to train a model in order to generate new music. Is that transformative enough? We don't know what a judge thinks, at least not yet.

[ohdeargodno]

Only if the physical albums don't have copy protection, otherwise you're circumenventing it and that's illegal. Or is it, against the right to private copy? If anything, AI at least shows that all of the existing copyright laws are utter bullshit made to make Disney happy.

Do keep in mind though: this is only for the wealthy. They're still going to send the Pinkertons at your house if you dare copy a Blu-ray.

[kbelder]

No, because they can just play the album for the AI to learn. AI training can be set up to exploit the analog hole. Same with images/movies

[nilamo]

> They're still going to send the Pinkertons at your house if you dare copy a Blu-ray.

Hey woah now, that's a Hasbro play, not a Disney one.

[zerocrates]

With some minor exceptions, CDs don't have copy protection.

[FateOfNations]

Minor exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

[jbverschoor]

Same how it works in the Netherlands.

[theteapot]

Yes.

[pier25]

Actually it remains to be seen.

If you read the ruling, training was considered fair use in part because Claude is not a book generation tool. Hence it was deemed transformative. Definitely not what Suno and Udio are doing.

[burnt-resistor]

So not only did they pirate works but they destroyed possibly collectible physical copies too. Kafkaesque.

[bigyabai]

Google set the precedent for this with an even less transformative use case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

[jonas21]

As they mentioned, the piracy part is obvious. It's the fair use part that will set an important precedent for being able to train on copyrighted works as long as you have legally acquired a copy.

[wood_spirit]

Cue physical books being licensed not sold in the futur with restricted agreements …

[mormegil]

See first-sale doctrine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>

[pier25]

Also music, videos, photos, etc.

[throwawayffffas]

So all they have to do is go and buy a copy of each book they pirated. They will have ceased and desisted.

[superfrank]

I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He said that for the books they pirated they broke the law and should stand trial for that and they cannot go back and un-break in by buying a copy now.

Found it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-c...

> “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft,” [Judge] Alsup wrote, “but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

[irthomasthomas]

Is copyright in America different to Britain? There, it is legal to download books you don't own. Only distribution is a crime, which most torrenters break by seeding.

[throwawayffffas]

I think it's very similar in both countries, but you have got it wrong. Downloading a book without permission is copyright infringement in both countries, regardless of whether you distribute it.

In the UK it's a criminal offense if you distribute a copyrighted work with the intent to make gain or with the expectation that the owner will make a loss.

Gain and loss are only financial in this context.

Meaning that in both countries the copyright owner can sue you for copyright infringement.

[rahimnathwani]

What do you mean by 'it is legal'?

Do you mean:

A) It's not a criminal offence?

B) The copyright owner cannot file a civil suit for damages?

C) Something else?

[irthomasthomas]

> Only distribution is a crime

[rahimnathwani]

What relevance does that have to the present case? The judge, in this civil matter, said there would be a trial. He didn't say anything about it being a criminal trial. The strings 'crim' and 'felon' do not appear in the ruling.

  We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness).

[throwawayffffas]

Only distribution with the intent to make money is a crime. If you are doing it for free you are not criminally liable. Unless I am missing something.

[kelnos]

It's not a crime in the US, either, I believe, but you can certainly be sued in civil court for it.

[freejazz]

They also argued that they in no way could ever actually license all the materials they ingested

[dmd]

I love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."

[AnthonyMouse]

The argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.

[homebrewer]

I used to order books in English from the US before shipping costs became prohibitive and the cost of shipping the book went to about twice to thrice the cost of the book itself. Is it fair use for me to download books from Anna's Archive now considering that books in English are not available in my region through other means (including the vast majority of ebooks)?

Rhetorical question, we all know that me reading books is not "transformative" so it won't be considered fair use for me to yoink them (transformative as in transforming more damage to the society at large into more money for the already rich).

[exe34]

That's right, so I can't individually discuss terms with each and every media creator, so from now on, I can just pirate everything.

[johnnyanmac]

They can. That's how any media service from Spotify to Netflix to Audible have to do things.

They simply don't want to and think they can skirt the law while the judges catch up.

[kelnos]

What do you mean by "negotiating"? They can buy the books in paperback form from Amazon. And for e-books available for sale without DRM, they get to skip the cutting and scanning part.

If the book is out of print, then tough luck. That's not a license to infringe on the publisher's copyright. If we're not ok with that, we have legislative means to change that. A judge shouldn't be rewriting law in that manner.

[freejazz]

> and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent.

No it's not. And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.

[throwawayffffas]

I don't even think their argument is about the money, I think it's more like we couldn't possibly find all these works in any other practical way.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

[hadlock]

It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.

[__MatrixMan__]

Fun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926

[gghffguhvc]

Or the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.

[axus]

Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft.

Substitute infringement for theft.

[superfrank]

They stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder.

Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.

[fortran77]

It's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.

[hnlmorg]

The GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.

[badlibrarian]

"Tell it to the Judge..."

[kjkjadksj]

You may not think it is but the law does.

[buildbot]

The law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.

[dragonwriter]

> So all they have to do is go and buy a copy of each book they pirated.

No, that doesn't undo the infringement. At most, that would mitigate actual damages, but actual damages aren't likely to be important, given that statutory damages are an alternative and are likely to dwarf actual damages. (It may also figure into how the court assigns statutory damages within the very large range available for those, but that range does not go down to $0.)

> They will have ceased and desisted.

"Cease and desist" is just to stop incurring additional liability. (A potential plaintiff may accept that as sufficient to not sue if a request is made and the potential defendant complies, because litigation is uncertain and expensive. But "cease and desist" doesn't undo wrongs and neutralize liability when they've already been sued over.)

[rockemsockem]

> So all they have to do is go and buy a copy of each book they pirated.

For anyone else who wants to do the same thing though this is likely all they need to do.

Cutting up and scanning books is hard work and actually doing the same thing digitally to ebooks isn't labor free either, especially when they have to be downloaded from random sites and cleaned from different formats. Torrenting a bunch of epubs and paying for individual books is probably cheaper

[tzs]

Generally you don't want laws to work that way. You want to set the penalties so that they discourage violating the law.

Setting the penalty to what it would have cost to obey the law in the first place does the opposite.

[AnthonyMouse]

That's for criminal laws where prosecutorial discretion can then (in principle) be used in borderline cases to prevent unjust outcomes.

If you give people a claim for damages which is an order of magnitude larger than their actual damages, it encourages litigiousness and becomes a vector for shakedowns because the excessive cost of losing pressures innocent defendants to settle even if there was a 90% chance they would have won.

Meanwhile both parties have the incentive to settle in civil cases when it's obvious who is going to win, because a settlement to pay the damages is cheaper than the cost of going to court and then having to pay the same damages anyway. Which also provides a deterrent to doing it to begin with, because even having to pay lawyers to negotiate a settlement is a cost you don't want to pay when it's clear that what you're doing is going to have that result.

And when the result isn't clear, penalizing the defendant in a case of first impression isn't just either, because it wasn't clear and punitive measures should be reserved for instances of unambiguous wrongdoing.

[badlibrarian]

Statutory damages were written into the first federal copyright law in 1790, and earlier in state law (specified in Pounds because the dollar hadn't been invented yet).

[AnthonyMouse]

The first federal copyright law in 1790:

https://copyright.gov/about/1790-copyright-act.html

Specified in dollars because dollars had been invented (in 1789), but in the amount of one half of one dollar, i.e. $0.50. That's 1790 dollars, of course, so a little under $20 today. (There was basically no inflation for the first 100+ years of that because the US dollar was still backed by precious metals then; a dollar was worth slightly more in 1900 than in 1790.)

That seems more like an attempt to codify some amount of plausible actual damages so people aren't arguing endlessly about valuations, rather than an attempt to impose punitive damages. Most notably because -- unlike the current method -- it scales with the number of sheets reproduced.

[badlibrarian]

My fault for the hanging clause: nearly a dozen state laws preceded it and used pounds. Mostly because they were based on the British law and also because the war made a mess of the currency situation.

Statutory damages were added to reduce the burden on plaintiffs. Which encourages people to stay in line. How well this worked out and what it means when some company nobody heard of 4 years ago downloads a billion copyrighted pages and raises $3.5 billion against a $60 billion valuation...

Well suddenly $20/page still sounds about right.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That is, he ruled that

> - buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use

> - pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

That seems inconsistent with one another. If it's fair use, how is it piracy?

It also seems pragmatically trash. It doesn't do the authors any good for the AI company to buy one copy of their book (and a used one at that), but it does make it much harder for smaller companies to compete with megacorps for AI stuff, so it's basically the stupidest of the plausible outcomes.

[MrJohz]

These are two separate actions that Anthropic did:

* They downloaded a massive online library of pirated books that someone else was distributing illegally. This was not fair use.

* They then digitised a bunch of books that they physically owned copies of. This was fair use.

This part of the ruling is pretty much existing law. If you have a physical book (or own a digital copy of a book), you can largely do what you like with it within the confines of your own home, including digitising it. But you are not allowed to distribute those digital copies to others, nor are you allowed to download other people's digital copies that you don't own the rights to.

The interesting part of this ruling is that once Anthropic had a legal digital copy of the books, they could use it for training their AI models and then release the AI models. According to the judge, this counts as fair use (assuming the digital copies were legally sourced).

[AnthonyMouse]

> This part of the ruling is pretty much existing law. If you have a physical book (or own a digital copy of a book), you can largely do what you like with it within the confines of your own home, including digitising it. But you are not allowed to distribute those digital copies to others, nor are you allowed to download other people's digital copies that you don't own the rights to.

Can you point me to the US Supreme Court case where this is existing law?

It's pretty clear that if you have a physical copy of a book, you can lend it to someone. It also seems pretty reasonable that the person borrowing it could make fair use of it, e.g. if you borrow a book from the library to write a book review and then quote an excerpt from it. So the only thing that's left is, what if you do the same thing over the internet?

Shouldn't we be able to distinguish this from the case where someone is distributing multiple copies of a work without authorization and the recipients are each making and keeping permanent copies of it?

[MrJohz]

I cannot point to the case, because my entire knowledge about the legality of this stuff comes from vaguely following the articles about this case. But feel free to read the judgement in this case where it will be spelled out in much more detail.

Also, I don't quite understand how your example is relevant to the case. If you give a book to a friend, they are now the owner of that book and can do what they like with it. If you photocopy that book and give them the photocopy, they are not the owner of the book and you have reproduced it without permission. The same is, I believe, true of digital copies - this is how ebook libraries work.

In this case, Anthropic were the legal owners of the physical books, and so could do what they wanted with them. They were not the legal owners of the digital books, which means they can get prosecuted for copyright infringement.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If you give a book to a friend, they are now the owner of that book and can do what they like with it.

We're talking about lending rather than ownership transfers, though of course you could regard lending as a sort of ownership transfer with an agreement to transfer it back later.

> If you photocopy that book and give them the photocopy, they are not the owner of the book and you have reproduced it without permission.

But then the question is whether the copy is fair use, not who the owner of the original copy was, right? For example, you can make a fair use photocopy of a page from a library book.

> They were not the legal owners of the digital books, which means they can get prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Even if the copy they make falls under fair use and the person who does own that copy of the book has no objection to their doing this?

[MrJohz]

You are talking about lending, but I'm not really sure why because it's not that relevant to the case.

If you photocopy a single page from a library book, this is often (but not always) fair use because you're copying only a limited part of the book. In the same way, you can quote a section or paragraph of a book under fair use. You cannot copy the whole book, though. Therefore:

> Even if the copy they make falls under fair use and the person who does own that copy of the book has no objection to their doing this?

If the copy had been made under fair use, then yes, this wouldn't be illegal. But it wasn't, because it was a reproduction and distribution of the entire book by someone who did not have the right to do that.

[op00to]

It is “established” law because the Copyright Act itself and a string of unanimous or near-unanimous appellate decisions (google ReDigi on digital transfers and Sony and the first-sale for personal use and physical lending) uniformly apply the same principles, leaving no circuit split and no conflicting precedent for the Supreme Court to resolve. In the U.S. system statutory text interpreted consistently by the Courts of Appeals becomes binding law nationwide unless and until the Supreme Court or Congress says otherwise.

[AnthonyMouse]

Sony v. Universal is a Supreme Court case, but that's the one where they say that sort of thing is fair use rather than that it isn't. ReDigi isn't a Supreme Court case, and it seems rather inconsistent with the Sony case which is. To claim uniformity you'd then need all the other circuit courts coming to the same conclusion rather than just not having had any relevant cases there yet, but is that the case?

[freejazz]

Do you think that Anthropic did not have the option of getting legal advice before they decided to pirate libraries of books for their own commercial purposes?

I understand that some of these things might be confusing to you, but Anthropic is absolutely within the position of being able to afford attorneys and get good advice as to what they could legally. I hope you also understand that good legal advice isn't being told what you want so you can do the thing you want to do without any regard for what are likely outcomes.

With that in mind, what do you think the inconsistency is between ReDigi and Sony?

[cusaitech]

The judge said they can train however I believe the judge did not make any ruling regarding model outputs

[MrJohz]

Thanks for the clarification!

[icelancer]

> You skipped quotes about the other important side:

He said:

> It was always somewhat obvious that pirating a library would be copyright infringement.

??

[jasonlotito]

From my understanding:

> pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

"Pirating" is a fuzzy word and has no real meaning. Specifically, I think this is the cruz:

> without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies

Essentially: downloading is fine, sharing/uploading up is not. Which makes sense. The assertion here is that Anthropic (from this line) did not distribute the files they downloaded.

[AlotOfReading]

The legal context here is that "format shifting" has not previously been held to be sufficient for fair use on its own, and downloading for personal use has also been considered infringing. Just look at the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading, not sharing for examples.

It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

[jasonlotito]

> the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading,

I never saw any of these. All the cases I saw were related to people using torrents or other P2P software (which aren't just downloading). These might exist, but I haven't seen them.

> It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

Every click on a link is a risk of downloading copyrighted material you don't have the rights to.

Searching the internet, it appears that it's a civil infraction, but it's also confused with the notion that "piracy" is illegal, a term that's used for many different purposes. I see "It is illegal to download any music or movies that are copyrighted." under legal advice, which I know as a statement is not true.

Hence my confusion.

I should note: I'm not arguing from the perspective of whether it's morally or ethically right. Only that even in the context of this thread, things are phrased that aren't clear.

[AlotOfReading]

I just checked first individual suit I could find, which was BMG v. Gonzalez. She used P2P, but the case was specifically about her downloading, not redistributing.

[travoc]

Most P2P tools work in a way where you cannot download without simultaneously uploading.

[AlotOfReading]

Which is beside the point if the plaintiffs don't claim it as an issue. Take the anthropic opinion in the article, where the judge explicitly calls out that there's an unresolved question of whether the model outputs might be infringing that can't be ruled on because the plaintiffs only talk about the inputs.

Gonzalez is a ruling about downloading even though there was also distribution.

[codedokode]

Downloading and using pirated software in a company is fine then as long as it is not shared outside? If what you describe is legal it makes no sense to pay for software.

[pyrale]

sci-hub suddenly becomes legal if all researchers adhere to one big company, apparently.

After all, illegally downloading research papers in order to write new ones is highly transformative.

[jasonlotito]

> Downloading a document is fine as long as it is not shared outside?

I've fixed your question so that it accurately represents what I said and doesn't put words in my mouth.

If I click on a link and download a document, is that illegal?

I do not know if the person has the right to distribute it or not. IANAL, but when people were getting sued by the RIAA years back, it was never about downloading, but also distribution.

As I said, IANAL, but feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that downloading a document from the internet is not illegal.

[CaptainFever]

> it was never about downloading, but also distribution.

Did you mean to write "but about distribution" here?

[jasonlotito]

Yes, thank you for catching that. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it now.

[eikenberry]

Given that downloading requires you to copy the data to download it, I'd think it would fall under "adding new copies".

[jasonlotito]

> All Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased ... with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies..."

That suggests otherwise.

[eikenberry]

They are using legal speak where I'm just talking making copies. The fact that they talk about how making a copy "without adding new copies" only makes sense in this light.