Yes, since we complained about them violating copyright so much, it does not violate copyright if they destroy the original, so they are now destroying the original. We got our demands met.
Edit(seriously):
>Transformativeness is a characteristic of such derivative works that makes them transcend, or place in a new light, the underlying works on which they are based. In computer- and Internet-related works, the transformative characteristic of the later work is often that it provides the public with a benefit not previously available to it, which would otherwise remain unavailable.(Wikipedia)
I am sure Napster or the like argued that what they were doing was transformative.
Not sure how AI companies are arguing about PUBLIC benefit if you have to pay...
It has to be sufficiently transformed. Simply scanning it doesn't qualify. The legal system by contrast is leaning toward training of AI as being sufficiently transformative.
Right. But destroying a book even without making a copy is also allowed. It's very very common, in fact; something approaching a billion books are destroyed each year in the US.
It absolutely is. By destroying the original they retain the one copy they were licensed. It explicitly discusses that this was judged fair use in a court of law, because of the destruction of the original, as this becomes a transformation of the original work rather than a duplication.
Copying it. Because they clearly believe that they’re allowed to do so.
For physical books, they believe they’re not allowed to, hence the destruction.
It’s abhorrent, I agree… maybe if your world domination plan involves destroying rare books, you should change the plan rather than saying “well our hands our tied, the law says we have to”
I mean they used to have a different plan, which involved not destroying the books, and then they got sued for not destroying the books, by us, so now they are destroying the books. What did you think would happen?