I’ll give you one last upvote for the discussion and a great attempt at backpedaling.

Since you requested it, I’ll oblige. Here are all the claims in this thread so far, and which of those three domains they fall under:

- Philip Bloom claims Google copied his films without having obtained a license, thus violating copyright law.

- @mankash666 claims internal distribution of material without a license is legal and does not violate copyright. Not true, falls under copyright law.

- I claim internal distribution of material without a license is illegal. I claim distribution of unlicensed music to extended family is illegal. Both of those are covered by copyright law.

- You claim that internal distribution is not distribution because people in a company are agents, so copying from one person to the next isn’t copying because it’s all one legal entity, the company. This is not true, and it falls under copyright law when the company is not licensed, and contract law when the company is licensed. It is not true that company agents are a single person for the purposes of determining copyright when the right to copy has not been attained. You also claimed incorrectly that only the company entity needs to attain a license, which depends entirely on the license, and is far from always true. You've confused both copyright law and contract law here.

May I add at this late stage you’ve also played fast and loose with the idea of legal entities and agents of a company. Employees of a company are not normally legal agents of the company. No people are ever equivalent to the company, but some may act on behalf of the company. There are different kinds of agents, but the kind of agent status you're talking about is usually reserved for lawyers and C-level managers, and may require a contract, registration with the state, power of attorney, etc.. Thus, your argument about distribution not applying to employees fails almost always, even when the company is licensed to copy some material. This is well beyond the scope of either copyright or contract law.

- I claim that copyrights belong to the author of a work, and they don’t differentiate between any kinds of legal entities, they grant rights to the author and deny rights to all other legal entities. This falls under copyright law.

- You claim that distribution is only distribution when the legal entity changes, not the person. That doesn't fall under any law because it's not true. You claim (again) that internal distribution is not distribution under copyright law. You confused copyrights with contracts here. Internal company copying is distribution under copyright, but under a license it may be legal to distribute. You claim that sharing boxed software is always legal, without specifying what kinds of use you’re talking about. This falls under both copyright and contract.

- I claim that agent status is irrelevant to copyright law, it only applies to contract law. I claim that copying boxed software internally to a company is not always legal. The first sale doctrine allows me to erase my copy and give the box to someone else, which I said above. The license may allow me to make a 2nd copy to share with someone else, that would fall under the license, or contract law. If the license doesn’t allow sharing, then sharing copies of the boxed software falls under copyright law, and it’s illegal both inside and outside of companies.

If you meant in any of your examples above that you intended “copying” to mean transferring software under the right of first sale, then I agree that’s legal. I didn’t see that anywhere. And having reviewed the entire thread, I can’t see a single claim you’ve made that is generally true, without needing qualification or assumption. Feel free to do the same exercise yourself and point out specifically where you think I confused copyright & first sale & contract. It’s entirely possible I’m wrong somewhere, but I don’t see it, and I’m not convinced.