I thought they were destroyed just because they rip out the spine to scan them more easily?

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.

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?

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"

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.

By that insane logic a digital copy isnt a copy. So a digital copy of a bluray isnt a copy either. I guess piracy isnt piracy as long as i destroy the original. Sweet! Are we finally seeing the "lets treat digital as if corporial" concept crumbling?

Yeah wtf putting something in ram for temporary use is a copy but this isn't?????

Even if you ignore the nonavoidable copies which happen during normal usage of digital files there is no way they don't dozens of different real copies of their training dataset across many different servers accessible by many people.