Live data from Hacker News

AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

annas-archive.gl

11–20 of 961 posts

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#11
The piracy organizations are playing 4D chess while everyone else is playing checkers. The irony of this entire situation - AI companies being legally required to shred books due to kafkaesque copyright laws, then used as a marketing tactic by Anna's Archive - is a work of art.

I support Anna's Archive, by the way. Information wants to be free.

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#12
post #2

I dislike these AI companies but let's be clear here: the copyright holders are the ones locking these books up. If they don't want to print more copies, then they could release the copyright on them. Instead, they enforce the copyright and force AI companies to shred books they want to ingest. edit: Also, an AI company would only ever care to purchase, scan, destroy a book once. Presumably many books have more than…

If only this complaint was being posted by an organization ideologically opposed to copyright itself!

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#13
I wholeheartedly believe the AI controversy on destroying books is being stirred up by the companies themselves.

Copyright law requires you destroy a book, if you format shift it. If you digitise, you need to ensure its not a "copy" but that your one license went with the book.

So... If enough people complain, they get to pressure for copyright changes. Which will just so happen to have massive carveouts to let them do whatever they want.

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#14
post #2

I dislike these AI companies but let's be clear here: the copyright holders are the ones locking these books up. If they don't want to print more copies, then they could release the copyright on them. Instead, they enforce the copyright and force AI companies to shred books they want to ingest. edit: Also, an AI company would only ever care to purchase, scan, destroy a book once. Presumably many books have more than…

The articles I've read on this are not clear, but I strongly suspect "rare" is not the definition you and I probably use for the level of rarity of books actually being destroyed.

These are not going to be the kinds of books "The Ninth Gate" resolved around - truly one of a kind. It's not good they are destroying books, but they are books which do have other copies. Just perhaps not many.

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also the case that the copyright holders are often putting restrictions around use of electronic forms that are driving the desire to use physical copies. I doubt AI companies would use a single physical book if they could avoid it - absent the legal cloud over electronic rights. I have no evidence but I can't help suspecting in part the publicity around this is driven in part by rights holders that want to for…

Ai companies don't use ebooks, because they are more expensive than second hand books

They absolutely do. Meta torrented 81 terabytes of ebooks. They just have no incentive to pay when the law looks the other way.

Re: AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late

#18
post #2

I dislike these AI companies but let's be clear here: the copyright holders are the ones locking these books up. If they don't want to print more copies, then they could release the copyright on them. Instead, they enforce the copyright and force AI companies to shred books they want to ingest. edit: Also, an AI company would only ever care to purchase, scan, destroy a book once. Presumably many books have more than…

They don't "force" anything. Trillion dollar AI companies and their owners have as much agency as book publishers.

They are "forced" to do this because that's what they have to do to abide by copyright law. They can't create a digital duplicate without destroying the original.
Post reply on HN