Copies of works

Beyond digitalization and the ease with which content circulates on the Internet, copyright law has shifted its focus from the “copy” of works to “access” to those works. Before this new scenario, copyright was largely tied to the protection of content fixed on tangible media: a newspaper, a magazine, a book, a compact disc, a DVD. Only a limited number of contents escaped this physical supply model, such as those broadcast by radio or transmitted by cable or satellite. In most cases, what copyright sought to prevent was the “illicit reproduction” of content, meaning the fixation of a lawful work onto a medium without the authorization of the rights holder. The very concept of copyright is historically linked to copying. The copyright holder is the one entitled to make copies of the protected work: a publisher printing copies of a novel, a record company producing albums, a film company duplicating a motion picture for theatrical release. In the earlier framework, this attachment to physical copying facilitated the pursuit of traditional pirates, whose distribution channels paralleled those of legitimate producers and whose products likewise depended on tangible media.

With digitalization and the availability of content on the Internet, identifying and sanctioning infringers became far more complex. Consumption is no longer tied primarily to a physical medium but rather to intangible access within a vast web of networks. Legally, this transformation prompted recent reforms to copyright statutes, shifting emphasis away from unauthorized copying alone and toward unauthorized access. In the virtual environment, limiting access becomes imperative because consumption no longer depends on material copies but on distribution through intangible networks.

In the pre-digital context, “copy” and “access” had distinct legal effects. One could read a novel in a public library without purchasing it; such access was lawful, whereas making an unauthorized copy was not. In the digital environment, however, the legal effects of access and copying tend to converge. Consider listening to a newly released album online without downloading it. Even without making a permanent copy, repeated online access may substitute for acquisition. The ability to stream the work at will effectively replaces the need for a physical copy. For this reason, in the digital context it is considered necessary to limit not only unauthorized copying but also unauthorized access. Yet restricting access to works is often perceived as restricting access to culture, which explains the resistance to such measures. Advocates respond that, if implemented carefully, these limitations need not impede cultural access, since alternative channels—such as libraries in the case of literary works—remain available outside the virtual sphere.