| ▲ | vintermann a day ago |
| > with a focus only on books with an ISBN number, the identification system introduced in 1966 So it's not likely to be rare and precious books. It's things which are already in the Library of Congress or its many equivalents. If they're forced by laws to destroy the results of the scans after training on them, as some have implied, that's bad, on the chance there is some actual lost media in there. But if they keep the scans, or even the transcripts, that's probably an improvement on the status quo, to be honest. I've had family members in the used books business, and trust me the fate of the vast majority of these books was always to be pulped. |
|
| ▲ | toofy a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > But if they keep the scans, or even the transcripts, that's probably an improvement on the status quo, to be honest. only if they share the scans/transcripts and don’t hide it away. |
| |
| ▲ | DougBTX a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, we’re in a funny position. By all accounts it is fair use (at least in the US) to train models (and build search indexes, e.g. Google Books), but sharing the books dataset itself is absolutely forbidden (clear non-transformative copying). Anyone that wants to train a model needs to procure and destroy their own physical copy of each book! | | |
| ▲ | Kim_Bruning a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How is this in any way, shape, or form a promotion of the arts and sciences anymore? This could very easily be turned into a preservation and archiving operation with just a tweak of the laws, or a carve-out. And make the bank once, and make it legal to train on? How people in the bank get compensated is a different question, but -while almost impossible to settle on an individual basis- could be settled reasonably in bulk by some form of mandatory implied statutory contract? | | |
| ▲ | dec0dedab0de a day ago | parent [-] | | How is this in any way, shape, or form a promotion of the arts and sciences anymore? Well, if the book is still in production the author will get the royalties. Though if it were still an active release they should just sell digital copies. |
| |
| ▲ | FartyMcFarter a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anyone that wants to train a model needs to procure and destroy their own physical copy of each book! Why? Couldn't they resell or give away the books after scanning them? | | |
| ▲ | trescenzi a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's less work if you use a destructive method. They rip the spine off to get individual flatter sheets instead of scanning a bound book. | |
| ▲ | ursuscamp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Per the courts, it actually helps their "fair use" case if they destroy the book instead of re-selling it. | |
| ▲ | sznio a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | chop off the spine and you can use an automated scanner. to keep the book intact you'll need a flatbed scanner and an operator. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | woodrowbarlow a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| letting companies train on books for only the price of a paperback and then forcing them to destroy their scans would truly be the worst of all worlds. (ps: the scanning process typically destroys the book too; they chop off the spines.) |
|
| ▲ | Yizahi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would any company keep evidence of their illegal operations after the deed was done? I'm baffled that you are even considering such hypothetical scenario. None of the LLM corpos are paying the copyright owners even a cent for using their IP for profit. Of course they will shred any remaining scraps and hide or delete all digitized data in the deepest illegal offshore possible. |
|
| ▲ | nuclearsugar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > “None of our data acquisition programmes buy and destroy rare or antiquarian books.” German booksellers are not convinced. They are sure, based on the vast orders, that the process is happening anyway via third-party service providers. |
|
| ▲ | sixtyj a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| SBN started in 1967 in UK (W.H.Smith), official international book numbering (ISBN) is after 1970. Source: https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_history |
| |
| ▲ | benj111 a day ago | parent [-] | | Strange to think of WH Smith as being at the forefront of technology. Also weird that in the space of 5 years, they'd gone from an idea, got national buy in, and then got an international standard sorted. |
|
|
| ▲ | iamacyborg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are plenty of rare and precious books with ISBNs. |
| |
| ▲ | bloak a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Rare, certainly: there are plenty of vanity publications that were chucked into the bin by almost everyone who was unlucky enough to be given a copy. Precious? Well, with the help of an electronic friend I found ISBN 978-3-8365-7349-8. Apparently a copy of that book is worth about £40k. Can anyone beat that? (EDIT: I'm assuming "precious" means the same as valuable here to make the question easier to answer. In fact, of course, people usually say "precious" when they mean a personal or emotional attachment or cultural importance rather than economic value.) | | |
| ▲ | iamacyborg a day ago | parent [-] | | I’ve not followed the market much but I suspect some fine press editions of Stephen King’s work would be up there. Of course, tons of standard paperback editions of those that could be pulped. |
| |
| ▲ | abanana a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are, but, quoting from the article: > Anthropic said: "None of our data acquisition programmes buy and destroy rare or antiquarian books." This statement was clearly carefully worded, using the words "rare or antiquarian" to mean "pre-1966, pre-ISBN". Their statement is answering a question that wasn't asked, so that (if they need to) they can claim in the future that they never said they weren't destroying books with ISBNs. | |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the lost media sense? I'm not sure. Of course there are always post 1960 books which are rare and valuable for being very limited run first editions, signed copies etc. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | didntknowyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yea have seen many books just recycled because of lack of space. scanning would at least preserve them before their ultimate fate |
|
| ▲ | SanjayMehta a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > pulped. Or have their covers stripped off and shipped out as "remainders." Almost all the 60s science fiction I've owned came like this, bought on the pavement in port cities like Bombay and Madras. Container loads sold by weight. |
|
| ▲ | troupo a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > on the chance there is some actual lost media in there. But if they keep the scans, or even the transcripts, that's probably an improvement on the status quo Where can I see the scans and the transcripts in this "better status quo"? |
| |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not enough of an improvement that you might see them. It's enough of an improvement that they will likely still exist somewhere. | | |
| ▲ | troupo a day ago | parent [-] | | > It's enough of an improvement that they will likely still exist somewhere. lol. A belief that a for-profit company will retain some data in its storage forever is somehow "enough of an improvement", but the proof that this actually exists isn't |
|
|
