I believe the post you are replying to is suggesting the copy is made by hand, one word at a time.

I don't see how that would be different, as the meaningful material is text not images.

At home? Without ever sharing it with anyone? I thought making backups of things that you personally own was protected, at least in the US. Could you elaborate on my apparent misunderstanding?

> I thought making backups of things that you personally own was protected, at least in the US.

Of physical items? Where did you learn that?

> Could you elaborate on my apparent misunderstanding?

One of the six exclusive rights of copyright holders is "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords."

(In certain circumstances, the Fair Use doctrine contravenes this right, but reproduction in whole is not such a circumstance.)

> Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal argument or case law to support that.

Quite the opposite. The burden of proof is on you to show a single person ever, in history, who has been prosecuted for that.

If nobody in the world has ever been prosecuted for this, then that means it is either legal, or it is something else that is so effectively equivalent to "legal" that there is little point in using a different word.

If you want to take the position that, "uhhhhhhh, there is exactly 0% chance of anyone ever getting in trouble or being prosecuted for this, but I still don't think its legal, technically!"

Then I guess go ahead. But for those in the real world, those two things are almost equivalent.

> If you want to take the position that, "uhhhhhhh, there is exactly 0% chance of anyone ever getting in trouble or being prosecuted for this, but I still don't think its legal, technically!"

> Then I guess go ahead.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Gotcha, so then you agree that there is exactly zero cases or evidence of anyone ever being punished for this, which is the most important part.

If you do this, you are not going to be held legally liable for anything.