Amazon wasn’t caught doing shit. “Caught” implies there is a possibility of consequences. Two days from now nobody is going to remember this story and the world will move on and there will be no consequences for this.
https://lemmy.world/search?q=rare+books&type=Posts&listingType=All&page=1&sort=New&titleOnly=true
This has been posted to death. Does this really need ot be a weekly thread? There is nothing to discuss its bad and we hate AI and we hate amazon.
Nothing good ever came of destroying books.
They scan them and destroy them so other AI companies can never get them.
Other AI companies can still buy them, they’re just rare because nobody bought them in the first place. They destroy them because scanning them is faster and in some jurisdictions that absolves you from copyright infringement since the amount of copies doesn’t go up
I’m just repeating what 404 media said on their July 21 podcast. They said that the first reports of AI book buyups were in Spain and the Netherlands, from rare book traders. The theory is that these AI companies are in a race to get the rare books first because they will be scanned and destroyed and they know that the widely circulated books will be available later
The most ironic thing is that this is the only way that the current cultural metastasis appreciates rare knowledge. Which we once did!
Like music it is the most fundamentally human endeavor and it has been destructively gamified. Thank fucking god for libraries, support yours!!!
More alarming was the upshot of that lawsuit: a judge ruled that because Anthropic was turning the physical texts into digital ones and destroying the original copies, it was “transformative” and therefore didn’t violate copyright law.
So by that token if someone digitizes a physical medium and makes it available to the public copyright is no longer valid. Otherwise, having it ingested by an AI has no purpose it it’s not meant to be referenced in response to requests by the end user.
Oh! Can I play? Let me transcode a video into a new format and put it on a blu-ray and then delete the old file! Transformative, lol.
No it only applies to books because books have an entirely different legal system than everything else.
SCOTUS case: White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) created a new issue for the Government about copying people’s printed works.
Copyright Act of 1909 is passed. New framework is established, books get an entirely different legal system from everything else. Publishers lobbied to prevent it’s passage and fought it especially hard in the Great Depression because libraries were becoming very popular during that time.
But printed books have a whole different thing that applies to them that doesn’t apply to anything else. So you can’t use “physical medium” because books are a special case and have their own special US law.
For books, transformative, has to deal with the intent.
- Book - I want to read them.
- Anthropic - I want to convert it to weights for use in massive matrix multiplication operations.
Since the intent is different, the book first sale doctrine applies here to grant transformative. Which is but just one pillar in their defense.
Same goes for what Google did like a decade ago.
- Book - I want to read them.
- Google - I want to convert it to a searchable database of terms that can refer you to the correct ISBN.
And transformative applies too to things like DVDs, it’s just under a different framework known as the DMCA.
- DVD - I want to watch the movie.
- MP4 - I want to watch the movie.
That’s not transformative.
- DVD - I want to watch the movie.
- MP4 - I want to take clips to make memes.
That is transformative. And again, transformative is but one thing out of the whole “fair use” thing.
This is the thing. Those news articles are oversimplifying a massive amount of legal technicalities. I’m not saying what Anthropic is doing is correct or not. What I am saying is that the conclusion that people are getting from these stories is like the last 10% of a massively technical legal battle. And running with that small amount can lead to conclusions that aren’t true.
And I know someone is going to bring it up. No you aren’t LEGALLY allows to rip a copy of a DVD for your personal use. Violates the DMCA. BUT in order to sue you, a publisher has to know ahead of time before discovery, that you broke their encryption scheme, which if you only keep it personally, is impossible for them to ever enforce. So we have a law that is written in a way, that if you never put it online, it’s impossible to enforce the law. As a summary of how all that works.
The articles are oversimplifying because the law is impossibly complex, but the moral hazard is obvious.
It’s like they’re murdering orphans and someone tries to argue it’s actually state sanctioned manslaughter.
It’s not impossibly complex. You’ve just had it explained to you pretty well and succinctly.
Copyright law is not some philosophically derived right it’s literally just a government granted Monopoly that was invented in the 1700s because printers wanted dibs on books. It literally serves Now function other than giving advantages to our corporate overlords
token if someone digitizes a physical medium and makes it available to the public copyright is no longer valid
only if you destroy the original i guess
(the real answer is that copyright is and always has been a tool for corporations to control the ownership of culture. what ai companies are doing isn’t fine in the eye of the state because it’s “transformative”, it’s fine in the eyes of the state because they’re corporations selling their products)
I stopped using Amazon like 8 years ago over various previous inhumane issues
Seems the rest of the world prefers slightly more convenience
What are you gonna do I guess
I miss electronics shops :( The chain and small hobby shops around me don’t carry things like resistors and capacitors. I checked every single one. Really.
Then I bought a lifetime supply of resistors, like actual hundreds, and it was delivered to my doorstep in under 6 hours for $8.
I dont miss paying extra just because its a local shop and they get to gouge
I ask people every now and then, the theme of the answer is similar: one stop shopping, it’s easier than looking elsewhere, answering with the question where else am I going to go? People tend to take the shortest path between A and B.
There are some things you can only find there, sure, but there’s more of a shopping dopamine hit if you look around. Other retailers do exist. Most of the time you can find it elsewhere.
I do most of my shopping through eBay, although some of the sellers use Amazon for fulfillment. They’re hard to avoid entirely.
just remember. the planet is going to be just fine.
remember how quickly wildlife came back when covid shutdowns hit? it’ll be like that when the last human dies.
Great. The ants, cockroaches and rats will fight over world domination once we drove nearly everything else into extinction. That‘s so reassuring. I only ever cared about the ants anyway. /s
I genuinely don‘t give a shit about the 99% of the planet that isn‘t it‘s outer crust so obviously I don‘t care if „the planet will be fine“ either. That‘s not mine or your world. Neither is anything that happens in millions of years after pretty much every species we ever knew is no longer there. It‘s such a straw man argument. Nobody is talking about what that clown was talking about when saying „the planet“ and he knew it.
you’re thinking too small scale.
in 150 million years after humans who knows what kind of life will evolve.
The last human will be descendant of billionaires who’s lineage lived underground for 8 generations
Just change one other mind. If everyone did the same they would be gone in no time. Do two and it will be done even sooner.
This is a weird one. If I buy a book, rare or not, do I not own it?
If you buy a house, it is illegal to set it on fire. It is also illegal to pump infinite molten lead into the soil under your house. It is also illegal to spray aerosolized asbestos out of the chimney of your house 24/7.
You still own the house.
-
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
-
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.”
Does it make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.
-
Think of it like the difference between pulling your car’s registration info and tracking your car across thousands of Flock cameras. At some point, scale is qualitatively different.
Amazon never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity
Where I draw the line for whether it is ethical to light things on fire is when they start destroying rare knowledge and books as fast as possible for no other reason than to hoard and obscure knowledge for private benefit.
It is one thing to fund the creation of knowledge and then hoard it, it is entirely another to begin actively attacking and destroying pre-existing publicly shared resources of knowledge in the pursuit of monetizing access to that very knowledge behind a gargantuan profit motivated entity.
They’re not acquiring actual knowledge, simply the most likely next word.
They’re destroying the books because it’s cheaper than scanning them intact.
there’s this idea in the AI development zeitgeist that “rare data” is the only advantage left. this stuff is almost certainly motivated by that type of thinking. if they can have data in their datasets that no one else does, they view that as the only way left to be ahead of the competition.
Rare doesn’t automatically imply valuable, useful or anything like that.
My Anthony Fauci x Drowsy Don fanfic is “rare”, but nobody including me would bat an eye if it was destroyed.
Rare doesn’t automatically imply valuable
I agree, there is only one of you, and you’re worthless.
These books were purchased from booksellers. Booksellers don’t typically carry books that won’t sell. That’s why it’s unlikely these are somebody’s fanfics printed on CreateSpace or something like that.
Booksellers “carry” utter shit.
Guess what they do when the book is refunded by the publisher due to bad sales? They cut off the covers and send them back as proof. The pages are destroyed. Nobody bats an eye.
No publisher or bookseller wants to carry 50000 copies of Joe Bob’s “How to cook maggots” when it flopped
Also how do you know if my fanfic is a physical book sold at a store or not? 😀
Also how do you know if my fanfic is a physical book sold at a store or not? 😀
Because you’re a loggerhead shrike, and you don’t look anything like E. L. James.
You’re so smart and well informed, thanks for sharing those sources and details that provide that context. Awesome work!
So Amazon should be destroyed to train humans?
Obviously this isn’t ideal, and fuck the massive amounts of destruction (environmental, economical, societal) of AI, but these stories amount to ‘book owner does what they want with books they own’.
I don’t disagree with any of these responses, and I’m not saying reporting on this to make people aware of it is bad or pointless.
So now what do we do about it?
Just because it’s legal, that doesn’t make it right. Corporations do terrible things all of the time which are perfectly legal.
If I was the owner of the only copy of an important book, I would have the legal right to destroy it, but nobody could argue convincingly that I did a good thing.
If I was the owner of the only copy of an important book, I would have the legal right to destroy it, but nobody could argue convincingly that I did a good thing.
I’d argue that, if the destruction was done to digitize the book, what you did was a good thing. Would you disagree?
There’s a huge difference, an absolute chasm, between non-destructive scanning, which was always an option by the way, for the purposes of putting it in a public archive and And destructive scanning with the intent to hide it from the public where it may never surface for all we know.
First, I was discussing the hypothetical put forth by that other person.
Second, “hide it from the public” is almost certainly a function of copyright law. Just because you are allowed to digitize a book doesn’t mean you’re allowed to distribute it.
A digitized copy which isn’t shared with anybody else? Yes, I would disagree.
As opposed to a single copy of a physical book?
Except they own those books only because they locked out regular people who want them and used insane amounts of capital they’ve stolen from said people to buy everything up.
This isn’t a guy deciding to toss his copy of a book. This is a company who has destroyed industries and the environment and used basically slave labor forcing people to pee in bottles to meet insane requirements all to hoard wealth that they used to hoard more things.
Condensing it to"book owner does what they want with books they own" ignores so many historic and systemic problems that led to this.
This is one of those “Legally nothing is wrong, but morally and ethically it definitely is”. Still a case where I throw even more massive shade on these companies for doing it. They could have just been donated to a library, there was no need to destroy them.
The article is evidence that the books were sold under false pretense.
I read the article and don’t see what you’re seeing. Can you point out the “false pretenses”. It seems the order was placed via a site that intentionally allows anonymous purchases.
As a sidebar:
a bookseller suspected that an order they received for 1,000 books on Biblio, a marketplace where buyers can remain anonymous, was for an AI company. So to get to the bottom of the mystery, they agreed to place an Apple AirTag between the pages of one of the volumes.
Emphasis mine.
That seems sketchy to me. I’m not confident it’s illegal, but I’m guessing a website that intentionally allows anonymous purchases isn’t going to take kindly to a vendor putting a tracking device in an order.
Oh no. Won’t somebody think of the billionaire whose monopoly that got exposed by some independent journalists who couldn’t be bought or bribed. How tragic.
If Amazon is behaving ethically, they don’t need to hide what they’re doing.
Yeah, you know that episode where Homer does pranks for Mr Burns and goes in and buys a no 1 spiderman from the comic book guy and eats it in front of him. That’s how most people feel about book destruction. Nothing legally wrong, but disgusting nonetheless.
When a person purchases something, it’s that person’s personal property. When a corporation purchases something, it’s that capitalist’s private property.
A true analysis of this type of headline would be more along the lines of “capitalist uses capitalism to encircle and entrench their capital at the expense of human culture and society”
