— 11 — “‘electronic’ means actuated by electric, magnetic, electro-magnetic, electrochemical or electro-mechanical energy, and ‘in electronic form’ means in a form usable only by electronic means...” E.2 34. “Electronic copies” As noted above, Mr Pun accepts that under the Ordinance, a “copy” of a work may exist in electronic or digital form. That is plainly correct. Section 24(4) expressly refers to issuing copies of a work in electronic form. It is, moreover, important to distinguish between the electronic copy itself and the physical medium in which it resides. Thus, section 23(2) refers to storing a work “in any medium by electronic means” as an instance of copying. The resultant reproduction of the work, ie, the copy, is “in electronic form” consisting of a specific combination of digital data which is “usable only by electronic means”. The physical storage article is therefore conceptually and physically different from the electronic copy it contains. Obviously, if a further reproduction of the work were to be made from that electronic copy, the resultant copy would constitute a further electronic copy. 35. In the present case, when the appellant electronically copied a film from the VCD and stored the copy made on his computer’s hard disk, he was “reproducing the work in [a] material form” as provided by section 23(2). The copy was an infringing copy since its making was an infringement of the copyright in the film, as stipulated by section 35(2). Each copy was also a copy in electronic form as it was only usable by electronic means. If it were to be further reproduced, the resultant electronic copies would also be infringing copies of the protected work. 36. Mr Pun accepts that the appellant incurred civil liability not only for making the infringing copies on his hard disk, but also for making them available to the public contrary to section 26. However, the Ordinance does not create any criminal offence based simply on “making available” infringing