“Copying” here refers to distribution and derivation, at least in the US. It is entirely legal to create copies of media for personal usage for instance (so long as you aren’t circumventing DRM, thanks DMCA).

▲

fsckboy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

from the about page:

Standard Ebooks is organized as a “low-profit L.L.C.,” or “L3C,” a kind of legal entity that blends the charitable focus of a traditional not-for-profit with the ease of organization and maintenance of a regular L.L.C.

corporations cannot make "personal copies" of copyrighted works, otherwise they'd buy just one copy of microsoft office

▲

whamlastxmas an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't correct. It is infringement, for example, to write Harry Potter fan fiction in private on a typewriter, even if another soul never sees it. Copyright includes creation, not just distribution

	▲	kec an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What you describe would almost certainly be considered fair use until point of distribution - it’s non commercial, transformative and has no meaningful impact on the market value of Harry Potter. Copies for private use are going to be similar, and while I’m not a lawyer it feels like it’d be a hard case to make that work being conducted in private is going to have a meaningful impact on the market for Nancy Drew novels in the next 30 days.
	▲	panja an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Better let AO3 in on that