Technology

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago*

Make it make sense

A robber barron class of psychopaths are running the whole damn show!

parent

[–] riskable@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

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

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 point 3 months 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.