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.

wombatpm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which is completely bonkers, because they are going to go on and make copies of their scanned copies- for backup purposes.

It would have made more sense for them to be required to store, maintain, and never sell the original.

What if taking the first picture of the Mona Lisa required it to be destroyed?

	▲	usrusr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The argument is so bad that a part of me is starting to wonder if it might be a deliberate signal from a judge under extrajudicial pressure. Like a hostage trying to blink morse while reading a message from his captors into the camera. "Do what they ask for but do it so badly that perhaps some people start asking the right questions"

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]