depends on the 'copyright'. If it covers the book's info and the book physical.

This is similar to a 'digital' copy and a 'CD' copy. I'm just saying, the current 'movie/film' money corps will push for 1 side of this argument.

Why is that weird? Copyright law for centuries has provided that the copyright owner's rights last the full term of the copyright. (The copyright owner may be the publisher or the author.)

A reader's right to a physical copy only lasts as long as the physical copy. If they want to extend the term of that right, they should take better care of their physical copy.

In the US context- A) Copyright terms have increased 5 fold over the centuries. B) The Supreme has ruled, at least in many contexts, that creating a backup copy of a work is fair use. I believe generally this applies so long as the backups are not sold or distributed separately from the original.

So, at least in some context this is false- the reader's right is to the information contained within the physical copy, not just the physical copy itself.

Modern copyright law in most places allows the creation of a backup copy of digital media to prevent loss due to wear.

That is actually not true in the US. The exceptions for making backup copies are limited to software (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)), and to libraries (17 U.S.C. § 108).

The market of effect of copies for personal use is insignificant and my understanding is that they are generally exempt as fair use.

In the US at least, fair use does not include a right to make personal backup copy. If you wish to extend your use of the item containing some IP, your options are basically to just take better care of the physical item.

However, it's simply not worth it for a copyright owner to go after someone making a backup copy for personal use since the statutory damages are only $750 (per act of infringement), and don't include legal fees. (Contrast to the infamous Napster/Limewire cases: each peer connection in P2P sharing constitutes a separate act of infringement if you share to them, which is what made it potentially lucrative for some law firms to attempt to shakedown users of those programs.)

This is an intended effect of setting the statutory amount at $750: it's too low to make it economical for copyright owners to go after isolated cases without market effect, but at the same time quickly makes it very expensive for infringers to commit multiple acts of infringement.

I'm not saying Congress has passed a law explicitly making personal copies legal, but it does appear courts (in the US) do consider market effect when determining fair use.

This isn't exactly the same as personal use but it's pretty relevant: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/appeals-court-ru...

> "While Google makes an unauthorized digital copy of the entire book, it does not reveal that digital copy to the public," the opinion states.

Also, Pamela Samuelson, a professor at University of California at Berkeley has stated: "Personal-use copying should be deemed to be fair, unless there is a demonstrable showing of harm to the market for the copyright at work"

>>In the US at least, fair use does not include a right to make personal backup copy.

While not "fair use" the library of congress which is empowered to make exemptions to DMCA has made such exemptions for Personal backup

Further the Copyright law only grants the Creator 5 Rights, these are around the public dissemination of the work, not the private use of the work. it is not a total control over the work like authoritarian copyright maximalists like yourself believe it to be

The Supreme Court has held in many contexts that non-distributed reproduction falls outside the control of copyright, so I can make as many PERSONAL copies of a work as I desire provided I never sell, gift, or distribute them in any way

I would love for you do show me in copyright law where it grants the right to control personal reproduction, as the copyright law is very clear about what rights it grants, it is all about distribution and performance

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106