AI companies are shredding rare books

Post by card_zero » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:31 PM UTC

ndiddy wrote: post #140

butlike wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is lending one digital version of one physical asset a violation of copyright? Since I MAY be able to lend out the physical as well?

From the court decision: "IA maintains that it delivers each Work “only to one already entitled to view [it]”―i.e., the one person who would be entitled to check out the physical copy of each Work. But this characterization confuses IA’s practices with traditional library lending of print books. IA does not perform the traditional functions of a library; it prepares derivatives of Publishers’ Works and delivers those…

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:32 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #228

phoghed wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been determined that training on lawfully acquired works is fair use. Presumably in this discussion of shredding physical books Dario and Sam are not pulling heists at the local library. I’m sure there’s ongoing litigation, and better sources than this, but fair use was determined in June 2025 in a sf federal district court https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/... Similar conclusion vs met…

Might surprise people to learn but the law isn't the final arbiter on what is moral or just. The law only decides what is legal and as we've seen over our lived history as humans, many "legal" things may not be those we want society to uphold.

Post by JodieBenitez » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:32 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #186

thechao wrote: post #4

Which book that was rare was destroyed? I'm interested to know a few titles.

Rare or not, destroying books is in itself a morally repugnant act. I don't know man, it's not so long ago we used to view nazi book burnings as an archetype of evil. Today companies are offering book-burning-as-a-service and it hardly causes a stir. Bearded German man was right.

Post by pfdietz » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:33 PM UTC

butlike wrote: post #133

ACCount37 wrote: post #10

The publishers sued AI companies for training on shadow library data, hoping to negotiate content deals for big $$$ down the line. Instead, they got analog hole'd. Turns out that buying an old book for $5 and destructively scanning it for $25 is way cheaper than paying extortion fees to the copyright-mongers. What I don't buy is it being "rare, precious books". First, they're not after ancient texts - they're after t…

Modern texts become ancient texts; given enough time.

Post by monknomo » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #248

squidbeak wrote: post #114

I've limited sympathy for the publishers. It pisses me off to reflect that they can sit on works until copyright expires, keeping them out of print. There's no real need for any of these so-called rare books to be rare while they're under copyright. And related to this, the books that are in print are mostly only in print in the shittiest way. I often see well-made books from the 17th or 18th centuries which are stil…

A friend proposed that copyright should just die with the author and / or their spouse and I'm left agreeing. I want books and music to be less strict on copyright. Some of my favorite YouTube channels break down music and songs, and go as far as recreating beats / tracks from famous hip hop songs, but someone at a record label company dings every one of their videos, they can barely sample a few seconds, its VERY CL…