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?
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.
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.
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.
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?