DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
65% Positive
Analyzed from 1454 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#books#scanning#book#destructive#non#don#common#value#old#copyright
Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
We throw away nearly a billion books every year. They're not sacred, and scanning a few million isn't a tragedy. People just don't like AI and want to be outraged about it.
Old books could have been common back in their day, but they might not be very common today.
But still, the number of duplicates will be inversely proportational to the rarity of the book. Lots of copies of James Patterson and Twilight, probably few or zero rare 16th-century manuscripts.
ars from a month ago is a bit less emotional about it:
"The court documents don’t indicate that any rare books were destroyed in this process—Anthropic purchased its books in bulk from major retailers"
but also brings up a reasonable point that there are good ways to do this type of scanning non-destructively.
It's not because they hate books or something. It's literally to stay in the law due to the legal rulings surrounding AI companies and copyright.
If they had the option of not destroying the books without any risk of further lawsuit, they would. They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.
i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive.
>They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.
i didnt say or imply they were
Yes, techniques exist, but they are not "reasonable" here, because for these books the risk ancopyright law require them to be destroyed after the scan anyway.
The non-destructive scanning [0] was done for different books with a different legal situation, ones that did not require destruction.
[0] I think multiple HN submissions just got merged, I believe the one I was referring to when I wrote this was an ArsTechnica article with a link referencing a partnership with Hiathi Trust.
And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them?
This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Feels are not a good way to think, people.
Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.
I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.
Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre.
I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...
What you are describing derisively as "feels" is actually nuance the very essence of intelligence is not reducing complexity to tapioca.
Destroying the last copy of a rare book reduces the sum total of human knowledge even if its not one already of note.
Historically current thinking isn't the best and most accurate judgement of value. We cherish many works that were not notable upon publication or even in the author's lifetime.
Previously the works were distributed and hard to lose all at once now they are possibly inaccurately scanned and even that slightly lossy data may disappear all at once in a wave bankruptcy especially if the economy crashes again as seems to happen every 10 to 20 years.
I suggest you ruminate instead of patting yourself on the back
Please, give me one example of an interesting and unique book that the AI companies have destroyed.
Not sure if that was a whoosh?
ÂŁ5 .. don't think it's destroyed .. https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Learning-Python-Mark-Lutz-OReilly...
Even if the person running the scanner treated every book with utmost love, museum-level care, and holy sanctity, copyright law would still require them to shred/burn the pristine antique book at the end anyway, or else they get sued for bazillions by the modern companies that "own" the book's contents.
Edit: I think multiple HN submissions got merged. Please excuse any resulting inconsistencies.
Some legislation got pushed through in some jurisdictions to allow them to claim things were "orphaned works".
[0] I think multiple HN submissions just got merged, I believe the one I was looking at was an ArsTechnica article, but now it seems to be a different paywalled one?
"Non-commercial" use can relate to one particular aspect of fair use, but there definitely is no blanket "you can copy work for non-commercial use" proviso in copyright law.
It fell off the front page but here's a relevant story from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49123300
In UK there's no non-commercial use exception at all.
In USA it can fall under Fair Use, commercial nature is not the sole measure though.
it is very common to break the back bones of books for mass scanning, I use one at home, I find old books offline, usually people try to donate them to the library but i buy it from them for scanning. It's the only way to economically and fast, there's no good solution beside cutting the spine and feed them into my scanner.