Let's say we have a device that allows to view book pages over Internet without persistently storing it in any tangible medium (like a memory card). I.e. without "fixing" it permanently where "fixing" is defined in 17 US Code 101. And we use it to view books from a remote server. In this case it seems like we are not making a "copy"; we simply let user watch book stored on our server. So this should be legal?
As in, is it somehow different when the copy that gets transmitted to the user's computer is encoded images of the pages instead of encoded text of the pages? No. You are using the word 'view' to describe receiving a copy. Again: It doesn't matter whether the UX presents it as a copy. The data factually is copied, and that's all that matters.
The copy is something that "fixes" the work permanently. The device I am describing is not "fixing" anything in a tangible medium.
Replace Internet with a video cable, and the device with a CRT TV. No copy is produced in this case.
This is true. If the copy is only "transitory", it does not count.
That hypothetical device does not exist, it's not relevant here.
It does exist, it's called FPV arm robot. Drive around the library, take books from shelves, open them, turn pages, read.
Would be curious to try this because the "ebooks don't wear" argument won't apply.
There was a company that allowed customers to rent DVD players, robotically inserted disks into them and transmitted their video output over the internet.
This was ruled illegal.
The letter of the law isn't the real law; the real law is that you must pay money to large media corporations or else. We now have two instances.
That doesn't solve the fact that the robot can't do the reading for the user. It takes a picture (makes a copy of the page), then sends a copy of that data to some remote user (distributes an infringing copy).