Personally, i think the roman pipes were a lot cooler.
(and also i dont think the way an aqueduct moves water by gravity over long distances would have worked using copper piping)
{edit}
Roman aqueducts were extremely sophisticated constructions. They were built to remarkably fine tolerances, and of a technological standard that had a gradient of only 34 cm per km (3.4:10,000), descending only 17 m vertically in its entire length of 31 miles (50 km). Powered entirely by gravity, they transported very large amounts of water very efficiently (the Pont du Gard carried 20,000 cubic meters {nearly 6 million gallons} a day and the combined aqueducts of the city of Rome supplied around 1 million cubic meters (300 million gallons) a day (an accomplishment not equalled until the late 19th century and represents a value 25% larger than the present water supply of the city of Bangalore, with a population of 6 million). Sometimes, where depressions deeper than 50 m had to be crossed, gravity pressurized pipelines called inverted siphons were used to force water uphill (although they almost always used venter bridges as well). Modern hydraulic engineers use similar techniques to enable sewers and water pipes to cross depressions.
A portion of the Eifel aqueduct, Germany, built in 80, showing the calcium carbonate that accretes on the sides of the channel without regular maintenance.In addition to the expertise needed to build them, Roman aqueducts required a comprehensive system of regular maintenance to repair accidental breaches, to clear the lines of debris, and to remove buildup of chemicals such as calcium carbonate that naturally occur in the water.
