> although civil, not criminal
That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a huge difference.
First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.
Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.
Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".
Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).
This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright. If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that context.
I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy" muddle exactly this discussion even more.