you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment