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.

	▲	mcphage a day ago \| parent [-]
		There are non-destructive automated scanners.