That is an element, but given the PR cost I’m sure they would use non-destructive scanning if they could.

No, the core problem is that keeping a scan is legal if and only if you destroy the physical copy.

It's both. The court has ruled that they can't make a copy of the book, but if they scan and destroy the original then it's fine because it's not creating additional copies.

Yep, it should just be illegal as a whole

That keeping the physical copy intact would mean creating a copy, and they don’t have the copy right.

I think it is to avoid dealing with unauthorised copies. If you forbid their existence, you never have to deal with them. Much easier than making laws about what you can and cannot do with the copies you made or what someone else can/cannot do with the copies that you made.

This is probably coming from the music/film industry lobbying. They are generating artificial scarcity. Not unlike the diamond industry.

The AI giants were arguing that if they bought the books they can scan them. The court said they can if the original doesn't exist anymore. The same court would presumably be ok with you making a digital copy of a VHS but only if you destroyed the original tape afterwards.

In a rational world with perfect information, yes, limiting the supply would help the artist. The world is not strictly rational. As someone with family in the book business, I can promise you that there are tons of irrational buyers.

Book buyers will buy because they see other people reading that authors books (more copies in the world means more sales in this case), they will buy special editions of their favorite books they already own, they will buy copies of books that they intend to read once and give to a friend even when the library is a block away and has copies, they will pay extra to have a hardcover new release even though there are effectively infinite other books that could entertain them until the paperback is released. Rational economic choices are actually not a given at the consumer level.

I fully agree about copyright. As a wild example, unless jk Rowling dies in the next three years, Harry Potter will have US copyright that started in the 20th century, and extends into the 22nd century.

“Very rare, out of print books…” Horsepoop. 99% of the books they are doing this to are the like of “The Guide to Memphis 1971,” or “How to Use Lotus Organizer for IBM OS/2: For Beginners (1999).”

Don’t be a Luddite for the sake of being “edgy.”

Wasn’t the ruling following the copyright statute?

So reading more I guess the judge narrowly ruled that destructive scanning is legal because of the one to one replacement, but didn’t rule on whether or not non-destructive scanning would be legal. It’s still not tested if scanning in that way would count as transformative fair use.