The Vanishing Page: AI Firms Scan Then Destroy Rare Book Editions

Post by 28304283409234 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #65

28304283409234 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One (1) company destroys and (illegally?) copies a rare book. This knowledge is now of that company, not of humanity. Other companies will feel the need to do the same and before you know it knowledge is walled off in the gardens of the AI companies, and the rare books are gone and destroyed.

When are you or anyone more likely to get access to a rare book: a) When a company has made a digitized copy of it b) When a few previous hard copies are kept somewhere in the world Idk what Anthropic plans to do with this, but note that my original comment was not about Anthropic at all. I simply think it's a good tradeoff to destroy a few copies of rare books if that helps digitizing them. I am not against simply l…

Post by 28304283409234 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #27

28304283409234 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One (1) company destroys and (illegally?) copies a rare book. This knowledge is now of that company, not of humanity. Other companies will feel the need to do the same and before you know it knowledge is walled off in the gardens of the AI companies, and the rare books are gone and destroyed.

The scan doesn't go away, and can be released when the copyright expires. Oh no, a lump of cellulose is gone. Will no one think of the fibers?

Post by tzs » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #61

datakan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years may be too little but generally I agree. What's blowing my mind lately though is the people complaining about copyright today are some of the same people I saw 30 years ago screaming "Information wants to be free" and running around with the DeCSS code on their T-Shirts. But suddenly, now that they hate AI, copyright is important and the information should be locked away. I can't wait for this all to settle…

far too often people care about things for purpose, not because they care. There are things of equal sorrow that don't get cared for because it serves no purpose. If your cause isn't ammunition for something that people already want to do then it will struggle to gain traction. For example, nobody cared about data centre water or electricity use when it was serving us up cat pictures. Collectively the past 20 years o…

Post by ninkendo » Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 12:26 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #76

ninkendo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got sued for violating copyright in general, not for “not destroying books” in particular. Destroying the books was a legal trick they used to continue scanning them without breaking the law. If I were running the AI company and my lawyers came back with “teeeechnically we can still scan them if we burn them after”, I would reply with “I guess we’re not scanning them”, but I lack the sociopathic instincts requir…

The sociopathy here is describing a perfectly acceptable activity as somehow evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Post by Quarrelsome » Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 6:58 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #75

Quarrelsome wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

far too often people care about things for purpose, not because they care. There are things of equal sorrow that don't get cared for because it serves no purpose. If your cause isn't ammunition for something that people already want to do then it will struggle to gain traction. For example, nobody cared about data centre water or electricity use when it was serving us up cat pictures. Collectively the past 20 years o…

People suddenly care about data center water and electricity use because a lot more data centers are being built now (there are more under construction now in the US than the total we had in 2020). Things being done as part of a massive boom are usually harder to accommodate then things done as part of longer term growth and data centers are no exception.