I haven’t had the chance to examine the philosophical basis of the last post yet, but now that this thought is in my mind I feel that I’m seeing evidence of it everywhere. To me, it makes perfect sense that to fully understand something one needs to take it apart and reassemble it–to see “what makes it tick.” Thus, by definition, understanding requires some kind of a copy. Perhaps if this idea has some psychological basis, and can be measured in some meaningful way, we can form a new understanding of what types of copying are permissible. Rather than look at the technical means of copying, we might look at motives or outcome. This may gel better with common conceptions of what a law like copyright might protect: piracy for profit would be seen as wrong, while borrowing to understand and improve would be encouraged.