251
Words cannot express how much I fucking hate corporate AI
Fascism*
Modern day book burning
How is this in any way comparable to that? The bad thing abt nazi book burning wasnt the destruction of physical copies of books, but the destruction of knowledge and their intent behind it
hard-to-find titles
but the destruction of knowledge
I think their point is that scanning preserves the content rather than destroying it, but I'm guessing the scans aren't exactly public.
Destroying the original is flat out stupid from every angle unless it's unavoidable or destruction (or taking control) is the goal.
Honestly it might be worse if that's not the idea, but yeah it's still nazi coded at best
load more comments
(1 replies)
- So the only scenario where your think makes sense if we have a seller with a book that is the only unit in existance and it is not digitized.
- The bad thing about nazi book burnings was the targetting of the books of political enemies and jewish authors. This isn't the case here. They destroy at most one copy of any book across the board.
- That's what rare & H2F means
- Read point one, carefully. If the books weren't rare, it wouldn't have enemies, but more commonly copied. Like the Christian Bible.
The same applies here
I'm flirting with radicalization over here
Was global warming not enough?
It should have been
Welcome to the movement. This is a good book to get started. I would recommend you to skip straight to chapter 1.
Thank you!
You are welcome :>
It's because that might allow them to monopolize access to information later on. Your future library is called Amazon and it costs you a 100 bucks per month subscription. Plus, they can change the information displayed to you at will, as it all comes from their algorithmic black box.
First off, if my future Library of Everything is called anything other than "Alexandria", I'll be quite cross
Sadly, they might just call it Alexa-Libria or some sht
They aren't doing this to gatekeep information, they're doing this to rewrite history. Fascism cannot survive otherwise.
If these LLMs are so great why do they need to destroy the books to scan them in.
My phone can scan a page and account for the curve caused by the spine but it's too much for their LLM data centers to figure out.
Because if you get all the copies of a rare book, scan it and destroy it, then nobody else can use it for training but you. They don't have to, they choose to.
According to David Gerard (youtube podcast link) they cut off the spines of the books to allow for rapid scanning
Edit: Ars Technica too, thanks alapakala
Yes, but being the only one able to get their hands on that book and destroying it has that added benefit. My point is that there is no motivation to preserve those books, quite the opposite in fact.
Most "rare" books exist in digital format.
Then they are not rare by definition. These are not the books they are buying.
Yeah they are. The company needs to scan their own physical copy, for legal reasons.
They did it your way, and people screamed bloody murder about "piracy," so now they're doing this. Anyone who demanded they do things "the right way" meant, this. Whether they knew it or not.
the first person that actually speaks sense in this thread
At the core of it is a rotten person making rotten decisions. That's why each solution is worse than the previous.
They're feeding it in, like a copier machine -- one sheet at a time so they lop off the binder, run the stack, and send it to the trash or furnace or wherever.
But yes, they could be doing it non-destructively, but they're being fascist-like.
It's faster, cheaper and can be automated. That's it. That's the whole reason. To avoid paying a person to do it.
My phone can scan a page
Great, now do that a hundred more times, as quickly as possible... for every book in an entire palette of books. This week.
And then you can't ever sell the books, or give them away, or lend them out, because then your scans are not "backup copies." It's just piracy.
I have been explaining this to people for an entire year, and this stupid fucking story still gets rehashed every week.
And I've also been explaining to people that destroying the book means losing the rights to the contents of said book for an entire year. Yet, here we are
You have been lying to people.
Please explain
If you have a backup - and the original gets destroyed - you still own the backup.
That's what makes it... a backup.
Yes, the backup still exists. What is also true is that you gave your original away or destroyed it intentionally, as it is in this case, so you lose the right to the backup.
Giving it away means there's two copies owned by different people. That's why you have to delete your backups.
Destroying it, accidentally or otherwise, means there's still one copy owned by whoever bought it. That's why you get to keep your backups. What the fuck else do you think a backup is?
A backup is not treated as meaningfully different from the original copy. That's why you're allowed to make one, at all. That's also why you can keep the backup - you still own that copy. Even if you've transferred formats. Which is also explicitly allowed.
A backup is a "break in case of emergency or unforeseen circumstance," a plan-b if you will. The last time I checked, destroying something on purpose is neither accidental nor unforseen.
Legal relevance: nil.
I wasn't aware that I was talking to a lawyer, apologies
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you destroy the book ya don't fucken own it, nimrod.
Yes... you do. That's why it's a backup copy.
If you think copyright law shouldn't work this way, great. We should should really change it to remove any incentive to hoard these scans - obviously these purchases aren't making the authors any more money. But right this second, this is the law, and that's what following it looks like.
Try that argument with a dvd, or a music cd, or pretty much anything and see how fast you get busted for "piracy"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why cant they just warehouse the books until the copyright expires, then? Why don't they go slower? Because they don't want to and don't care about the damage.
Don't stick up for them, they aren't gunna pay you for that year you spent trying to hold water for them. Nobody is cuz we don't want that either way.
Yeah why don't they just spend an order of magnitude more effort and money to maintain an unusable forest of dead trees until *checks notes* forever minus a day?
I fucking hate bad arguments, for my own sake. I hate misinformation going round and round, with shrill comparisons to the fucking Nazis, because someone dared to buy and privately preserve a copy of a book that nobody else was likely to ever purchase.
Relax copyright if you want this to go better. The idiots inflating the bubble are doing this because our stupid laws say they kinda have to. It's an asinine legal situation that leads to crap like this, and no amount of well-they-oughtta is gonna change crap like this.
I feel like we're missing information from that summary:
- why are they "hard to find" titles?
- are the books being sold digitally under a license?
- is that license for 1 digital copy, or is the same book being copy-pasted to each buyer?
- how were the books acquired?
- do the books have redistribution rights?
They never list titles or condition of the books so I just assume they are the same books you can find in big piles at the dump mostly old text books and technical books. I love books I own hundreds of them, but people don't buy enough 2nd hand books there are sites where you can buy books by the yard so you can have a neat and matching library, there are warehouses full of books to rent for movie sets. Noone realy cares they just want to be upset.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
251 points (97.0% liked)
Privacy
6068 readers
11 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS