Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd assume it's still a copyright violation if you copied and distributed the shredded copy. The way I arrive at that is imagine you add just 1 pixel of static to a video, that'd still be a copyright violation. Now imagine you slowly keep adding those random pixels. Eventually you get to the point where the whole video is just static, but at some point it wasn't. Now, would any media company or court sue over that? P…
When you point your browser at a website the browser creates a (transformed) local copy of the information that is owned by the website itself. The browser needs to do that to render the website on your screen. Is it a violation of copyright (that the website is willing to tolerate because it profits from advertisements)?
What would violate copyright is if you took that rendered page, turned it into a jpeg, and then hosted that jpeg from your own servers. That's the copying that would run afowl of copyright law.