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.
> "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
