this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
609 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
87183 readers
4467 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd argue that, if the destruction was done to digitize the book, what you did was a good thing. Would you disagree?
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.
Like Anna's Archive, or Sci-Hub. Famously legal.
If only they uploaded everything to those archives, the scanning would be perfectly fiiiiine.
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.
A digitized copy which isn't shared with anybody else? Yes, I would disagree.
As opposed to a single copy of a physical book?