全部文章0
Hacker Newsanon373839··访问 1

AI companies are shredding rare books

原网页

https://xcancel.com/HedgieMarkets/status/2081534588485296565

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49068738

Points: 762

# Comments: 479

Hacker News 讨论

763 points · 479 comments · 查看原帖

  1. squidbeak

    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 still in good nick. It's ridiculous that in the 21st century, publication standards have fallen to the point where for most works a disposable format is the only type available - where no amount of money could buy a truly decent hardback copy. If we have to have copyright laws, I'd like to see two changes to them. When a publisher has no incentive to keep an edition in print, it should be available to any other publisher to print, without compensation to the original publisher, a

  2. trollbridge

    We reprint old books after checking out copyrights (for all books, this means pre-1930, but for some (I'd actually say most) it also means ones published up to 1964 and 1973, depending on how the rightsholders did (or didn't) do the renewals). We use a special guillotine type cutter to cut off the binding and then store the pages in a sealed plastic bag which goes in the archives; they're stored there indefinitely in case the book needs rescanned for some reason. We also keep the original, uncompressed copies of the books on magnetic disks. We also go out of our way to try to find rare books published in 1931, 1932, etc. so they are ready to go once the copyright expires. And no, no AI company has ever come to us and asked to run training on all of our scanned copies.

  3. est31

    > You can reprint a bestseller. You can't replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone shreds them for training data. And the judge said it's legal. So it's going to accelerate. Aren't they shredding only the books still under copyright protection? How is an 18th century botanical text still under copyright? IDK about the shredding, it's not nice, but it's more a problem with copyright law than AI companies. Scanning books you own should be legal from a copyright point of view, and not require shredding. Second, one should think about abandoned property provisions for copyright works published more than 50 years ago and in danger of being forgotten: once challenged, either you as the owner have to prove that the work is preserved for future generations (e.g. in various libraries around the world), or you have to authorize further copies, or you give up cop

  4. lousken

    That's why archive.org should have never been sued for lending books they had physical copy of. This is the result. Publishers should be more careful what they wish for.

  5. ACCount37

    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 the books that there's still copyright on. Second, when it comes to books, "old" doesn't mean "valuable" - plenty of libraries destroy old books because there's no demand for them, and storage costs you. This is how those scanning companies get books for so cheap.

  6. sherr

    I see mentions of Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" in that thread but what this really seems to be mostly like is Vernor Vinge's "shred and scan" factory in his novel "Rainbows End".

  7. JumpCrisscross

    Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone: digitize rare books and reverse the damage from Authors Guild v. Google [1]. Let AI companies do this. But require them to make the digital copies public. Maybe with a multi-year delay, to give the original scanner advantage to doing it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,... .

  8. Cider9986

    Can only blame AI companies to a limited extent. This is apparently the legal way to do things because of stupid copyright laws. Support your local shadow library: https://annas-archive.pk/donate