• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The knowledge is retained and owned by a private corporation who now does not have to share what may have been a still under copyright, but now the corporation owns it? Make it make sense.

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          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.