Copyright these days means a lot more than what was originally intended, at least in the USA, which is all I really know anything about. The basis for US copyright law is the clause in the constitution that grants temporary short term exclusivity to a creator to give him a head start at making money from his creation. Nothing is said about it being "property". The whole idea of "intellectual property" seems somehow alien to me.
When an author (or publisher) publishes a book that book becomes part of our culture. From then on it belongs to all of us. The income from the book belongs to the author or publisher but the words are all of ours. The idea of the author or publisher having the right to withdraw it and take it away from us, from those of us who haven't bought or read it yet, just seems wrong to me. It's somehow anti-social.
Authors don't own the books they write and sell. They own the income the books generate. That's it. At least according to Barry's Law.
I'm all for paying for my books and I hope authors and publishers make a good living from them. As far as I'm concerned books are a good place to spend my money. But I don't accept anyone's right to tell me I can't obtain a book and read it.
A personal diary isn't part of this calculation, nor is any book that hasn't been published. But once a book is made available to us all bets are off.
One thing that might help with all this would be some kind of orphan work law that says if it's no longer available for some length of time it becomes public domain.
Barry