this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
453 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
86563 readers
2970 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. That does make sense.
If you bought a book, scanned it—destroying it in the process—then read it on your computer, that would be completely acceptable.
Why is it wrong when a corporation does the same thing?
They're not claiming ownership of the copyrights, just ownership of a copy. Which is how copyright works.
Now we just need to proof they've copied the files onto a second hard drive, so they own two copies
If we're gonna keep it as a copyright issue, I think people are mostly mad they're not able to reprint the books themselves if they wanted to. We're not speaking from a copyright position
If you own a book, you can legally make as many copies of it as you want. As long as you're not distributing them, the courts treat that as a single effective copy.