"What if I distributed a bunch of mini printing presses that, when you pressed a button, produced a perfect copy of this year's best selling novel?"
Depends. Where do those mini printing presses get their data from to print the novel? If its already in there (in the machine), then clearly you are already violating copyright, since the information has been copied and distributed along with the presses.
If it's not, and the presses get their copy from the internet/site and did so without authorization, then it would be that site that violates copyright, since (duh) it is copying and distributing it copyrighted work without authorization.
So... what exactly was your point?
One *might* make laws against 'facilitating' copyright infringement - and some countries have done so - even when it concerns downloading stuff, but it *ISN'T* considered 'downloading' nor 'copyright infringement' to give a reference to something. But something that is in your RAM/cache isn't considered to be copyright-infringement (at least in the EU).
So, in your example of presses, as long as they don't contain the information in the form of a copy it can't possibly be considered copyright infringement. It may go against a law that deals with *facilitating* copyright infringement, if such a law exists in your country, but it is not a copyright-violation on itself. Note, btw, that not every copy is an illegal copyright violation, as the VHS copying (and laws) have established. (ah, does the youth even know what VHS is anymore).
It seems strange that one is so willing to lose all the rights one wants had. Must be defeatism. We're slowly moving into a direction where ALL copying, and now even referring to material that might or might not be copy-infringed is considered a copyright violation (and thus illegal) on itself.
The reason is obvious: companies and business have much too much sway with politicians who make the laws. They have far more clout (and money, and lobbying groups) than ordinary citizens have, and thus we're always getting the short end of the stick.
Copyright should be restricted to the lifetime of the author (for natural persons) or 40 years max (for non-natural legal entities as copyright-owners). Software shouldn't be patentable, just like business ideas and algebraic formula's shouldn't.
We've just been swinging far too much in one direction (aka, corporation-interests) instead of making a balance of things. After all, IP-rights are de facto monopolies, granted by the state. And the state, in a democracy, are the citizens. So if those very, very long duration and strict IP-rights are not to be benefit of the populace anymore, we should get rid of it, at least in its current form.