My browser is saving a copy of the web pages I visit on my computer. How is that not copyright infringement?
in this answer I read:
I would hazard a guess that displaying an HTML webpage online is implicitly allowing others to read that code
How does that imply that you can make a local copy, when a web page includes a copyright note, or does not mention copyright at all (in which case standard copyright rules apply)?
I suspect that the only possible way out would be stating that digital text is not the same thing as printed text and therefore the same rules should not apply, but we are constantly told the opposite, aren't we?
I'm adding some quotes from the only answer and comments below, to bring more elements for further answers that I hope will come, since I'm still not convinced that this situation makes completely sense.
It has been pointed out that
Fortunately I don't need to be convinced, as I'm not a judge on a relevant case (Jon Story. I changed "you" from the original comment to "I")
And that's totally true, so I feel like reassuring that my question comes only out of my couriosity and noone needs to answer if they don't wish to satisfy that.
I'd like to receive an answer that copes with some alternative views seen here, possibily making me understand which one is right (or more logical, or more convincing). I don't mean to make this question become too broad, so we are still dealing with the original problem: whether browser cache violates (US and EU) copyright laws in theory. I do hope this is a good subjective question.
Please be aware that I believe the term Intellectual Property, which appeared in the comments, to be misleading. It refers to patents, trademarks, copyright and other stuff, while we're just discussing about copyright here.
Quotes from answer and comments:
Copyright is not about copying, it is about use (Jon Story)
Many misconceptions are based on copyright being about use. Copyright is not about use, it is about copying (Marcks Thomas)
To expand on the point about use, not copying, being the main issue, it would be a violation of copyright to take a BD and project it onto a large screen and charge money for people to watch it. I didn't copy the disc, just played it for profit (or even if i didn't charge, as a public performance) and I'd go to jail (Andy)
You wouldn't say the optical fiber the data was sent through was copying the data? (kasperd)
In order to read printed text, your eyes make a copy of that work (in a different format, made up of neurons firing in your brain) (Jon Story)
routers don't copy the data in full. They process one packet at a time, which by no means is enough to contain the full work. A packet is more comparable with a citation, than a copy of the work. (kasperd)
I'm going to start a bounty on this question. Here I add the parts of the current answer (Jon Story's) I'm less satisfied with:
Because you are not duplicating the content or re-publishing it
I'm clearly doing the first of these two things.
The web page is publicly available anyway (or at least, accessible by you), so you have permission to read it: copyright is about whether you have permission to access and read the file, not about whether you have permission to make a copy of the file as part of the technical process of accessing and reading it.
I'm almost certain that copyright is not about the permission to read and access the text, but about the permission of making copies, modifying, redistributing and other stuff like that. For instance, I don't think you can make a copyright note that does not allow reading your content. Is fair use the key point here? That may be, and in the comments I was almost convinced. However, I've never known that fair use could justifiy copying the entire text. They won't let me photocopy an entire copyrighted book for personal use, I guess.