Remix.run Logo
ACCount37 3 hours ago

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.

silverlimetea 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is such propaganda lol

They change the info (many buyers), destroy the source material, and now the lie is in the LLM.

That's it!

tencentshill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So they're not valuable... except to AI companies. They should pay a fair amount.

ACCount37 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They are paying a fair amount. In the ballpark of $5 per book.

You know, piracy online is nice and simple - but it's kind of hard to get physical media without paying what the previous owner considers "a fair amount" to part with it.

chii 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They should pay a fair amount.

they should pay the marginal value that the next buyer would buy.

Do you also think that a person dying of thirst ought to pay the maximum price they could possibly pay for water?

soco 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It might be me but I fail to see the equivalence of AI companies with thirst deaths. That', or maybe because it's a strawman.

Minor49er an hour ago | parent [-]

The point is that you can buy a book for a few bucks, read it, and have its insights completely available to you. But people are demanding that LLM companies pay far more to publishers for the same copies

bitwize 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

If Elon Musk is dying of thirst then the price of that glass of water is set at (pinky to side of mouth) one million dollars.

Analemma_ 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

They're paying the market price for a used book and getting the same rights out of that purchase as you or I would if we bought a used book.

SirFatty 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see.. so the various AI companies are in the right on this?

infinite_spin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think they are in the legal sense of right, and I think they only discarded the remains of these dissected books because previous rulings (e.g. archive.org's lending practices of digital copies of books they physically owned) gave rise to a situation where destruction bore less legal risk. As for the moral case, I don't have much to say on that, we all have our own lines in that sand.

jerf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I would say that especially for books out of copyright, they are unquestionably legally in the right. There is no legal standing for "I like books and it makes me feel squicky when someone disrespects them". Nothing stops you from buying old books and using them as decoupage[1] fodder, using them to start a campfire, or making paper airplanes out of their paper.

Moreover, while it is emotionally appealing to some people to want to add some sort of "responsibility to society" to people who own the old books, it's a very emotional plea that can't really be manifested in the real world. As already pointed out in other places, "an old book" itself doesn't really mean much in terms of what its value is in any particular dimension. Plus, I am always deeply suspicious of anything that expands to "Other people, who are not me, should expend vast quantities of resources so that in the next five or ten times I think about this issue for the rest of my life I feel slightly better about this issue" which is what this really amounts to. I think that as superficially appealing as that may be, it's really a very hostile and demanding position to take.

Personally, to the extent that I would want to lay a "social responsibility" on the AI companies, I'd like to see something like they are either obligated, or ideally, just do it of their own free will, to make the scans of the books that are out of copyright available for some reasonable fee (ideally, "free because we like the PR", but given the scope demanding it be free is not reasonable), and without them trying to lay any further claims on the public-domain results. Trading "one old book somewhere, inaccessible to the world" for "a scan of the book and an OCR of it" I would judge a net win for society for rather a lot of these old books, which are by no means "worthless" sitting in some old collection somewhere but would be a lot more useful for being available.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupage , since I imagine a number of people won't know what that is.

eru 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree. As for making the scans available:

They could give a copy of the data once to some third party organisation that then seeds it in bittorrent or something like that. Basically, what I want to say is that this doesn't need to be an ongoing obligation for the scanner to be worthwhile for society.

9 minutes ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
master_crab 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can be the case that everyone in “a fight” is wrong.

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
yeoyeo42 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yes. in the sense that they probably wouldnt want to do this but the law forces them to do an extremely dumb thing.

they're paying for the books, no shady things going on there. whether the publishers should deserve more than a single copy's worth is a separate question.

having the law such that its illegal to scan a book and then keep it, but legal to scan it and destroy it - gg no re there, law people retardmaxxed themselves as they tend to do with anything related to digital data.

margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Law aside, destructive scanning is cheaper and easier. Cutting the book into individual pages would be happening regardless, because that is the easiest, fastest, cheapest way to scan it.

butlike 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Modern texts become ancient texts; given enough time.

wwweston 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Buying up old books is legal. Digitizing and distilling them arguably is too. And also:

> paying extortion fees to the copyright-mongers

Yes yes, greedy fat cat publishing oligarchs treading on the poor put-upon scrappy AI underdogs. /s

Back in reality, the fraction of people who got into publishing books to get rich collecting rents is… not large. There’s so many other fields that are likely to reward participants with more wealth that it’s absurd — even with all the passion for the work in tech it’s probably relatively less pure.

And whatever the excesses of copyright have been, the whole bargain has always been on more pro-social foundations and stronger intellectual foundations than “extortion” sneers. It recognizes that incentives matter and work that’s valuable should be rewarded and incentivized.

A culture that takes a Robin Hood approach to low marginal cost billing points but fawns over the hypercapitalized distribution King Johns isn’t creating a freer or richer society or fighting the real cartel center, it’s indulging resentment and caricature.