• zarkanian@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Just because it’s legal, that doesn’t make it right. Corporations do terrible things all of the time which are perfectly legal.

    If I was the owner of the only copy of an important book, I would have the legal right to destroy it, but nobody could argue convincingly that I did a good thing.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If I was the owner of the only copy of an important book, I would have the legal right to destroy it, but nobody could argue convincingly that I did a good thing.

      I’d argue that, if the destruction was done to digitize the book, what you did was a good thing. Would you disagree?

      • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        There’s a huge difference, an absolute chasm, between non-destructive scanning, which was always an option by the way, for the purposes of putting it in a public archive and And destructive scanning with the intent to hide it from the public where it may never surface for all we know.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          First, I was discussing the hypothetical put forth by that other person.

          Second, “hide it from the public” is almost certainly a function of copyright law. Just because you are allowed to digitize a book doesn’t mean you’re allowed to distribute it.