I'm sorry, but I still fail to see  saving an image to a hard drive for your eyes only as being a violation of copyrights because that image is not being maniuplated, changed, altered, mutilated or shared around.

As I stated earlier in another post in this thread,  the copyright law is obviously open to interpretation and because of that it's become a snake pit of convoluted hodge podge making this whole thing  more complicated than it needs to be.

Anyway, it seems you and I are at a stalemate because we both seem to have different interpretations of what is and isn't copyright infringement of intellectual property.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi