— 3 — the full offence. If the appellant were to succeed on the issues raised, the convictions for attempt could not stand. B. The issues and decisions below B.1 What is a “copy”? The first issue raised by Mr Kevin Pun on the appellant’s behalf 7. concerns the nature of a “copy” in the context of data transmitted on the internet. He accepts that a copyright work may be reproduced in a manner resulting in the creation of a copy in digital or electronic1 form. But Mr Pun contends that such an electronic copy can only exist as something stored in a physical object which functions as a medium for storing digital data, such as a computer’s hard disk, a CD, a DVD, a flash memory card, and so forth. To hold otherwise would, he submits, be to suggest that an electronic copy can somehow exist in a vacuum or in some imaginary realm. 8. It follows, so Mr Pun argues, that a digital copy, obviously including an infringing digital copy, cannot be distributed unless the storage device is itself physically transferred to the recipient of the distribution. This, he argues, did not happen in the present case so that no infringing copies were distributed. B.2 9. Was there conduct amounting to “distribution”? The second argument is closely related to the first. Mr Pun argues that for “distribution” of a copy to occur, the distributor must first be in possession of the relevant copy which he then transfers to the recipient, after which he no longer has the distributed copy. This, he submits, was not the position in the present case. The infringing copy of each film, he argues, only 1 The terms are used interchangeably in this judgment.