| Rare by whose definition? I’m not aiming this at you directly by: ISBNs or STFU Show me which “rare” books they are destroying and _maybe_ I’ll care but so far the pearl-clutching over this leads me to believe it’s people worked up about the idea of destroying (except it’s not destroying, it’s transforming, a fact often ignored) books, books that it’s not clear at all there is any strong demand for. People want to invoke things like F451 but it doesn’t compare in the slightest. It’s like when people get mad about libraries throwing away or otherwise liquidating books that no one is reading in order to bring in books people want to read. People get all up in arms about that as if a book itself, in isolation, is inherently valuable or worth protecting. It’s not. If no one wants to read it then what value does it have? The impetus is on the people that think the book has value, it’s on them to carry the torch, to preserve what they think is worthy. It would be like a company going to a yard sale and buying unsold/unwanted items to 3D scan them and destroy them in the process. This isn’t breaking into the Louvre and destroying one-of-a-kind artwork. |
| |
| ▲ | squidbeak 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Show me which “rare” books they are destroying and _maybe_ I’ll care but so far the pearl-clutching over this BBC good enough for you? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3rprx2wl4o "A recent academic text published in only 100 copies, 75 of which are already in libraries, may be very rare on the market - but it is perhaps not such a great loss if one copy is destroyed," says Derek Walker, owner of Edinburgh bookshop McNaughtan's. "But we have, and have sold, books which are for example the only known surviving example of an edition from the 18th century. "It would be a much more significant problem if one like that were to be bought for destruction, having survived this long." | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | It would be if it made the point you think it is. All of this is more and more hand waving. 75 copies in museums? Then I think we’re good. As for the 18th century books, that’s pure speculation. It’s like a museum saying, “yes we have they prints for sale that they keep buying and destroying but wouldn’t it be a shame if someone destroyed the actual Mona Lisa?”. And lastly, if these books are so important, then don’t sell them, hold onto them, digitize them without destroying them. This isn’t complicated. Amazon/etc aren’t breaking into museums and libraries, they are buying books on the open market. If these books are so rare and important, then why has no one cared until now to actually preserve them? | | |
| ▲ | squidbeak 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It would be if it made the point you think it is. All of this is more and more hand waving. 75 copies in museums? Then I think we’re good. You're repeating the seller's contextual point, as if it's a counterargument. Do I need to explain to you that what makes the lone surviving 18th century edition important is that there aren't 75 copies of it in museums? > And lastly, if these books are so important, then don’t sell them, hold onto them, digitize them without destroying them. It's good to see you agree any digitization of this category of book should be non-destructive. > If these books are so rare and important, then why has no one cared until now to actually preserve them? (Lastly for realz this time, eh?) Why has no-one cared to actually preserve the actually preserved book being sold by the bookseller... Bit of a strange question, that. | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are conflating 2 parts of the article to make it say something it's not. No one has put forward any examples of a "lone surviving 18th century edition" being bought up my AI companies and destroyed. That was just an example of "wouldn't it be terrible if", not a "this has actually happened". It's a complete hypothetical, it's a made up scenario, it's a boogeyman. You've hung your entire 2 comments on something that has no evidence of happening. > It's good to see you agree any digitization of this category of book should be non-destructive. I don't. Digital or physical, it's the same, there is no difference in my mind. I have many paper books but they are art, not functional, I also have the ebooks which is what I actually read. The _ideas_ are what's important, not a dusty, decaying shell in which the ideas are contained. I wouldn't shed a tear over every library digitizing their books and destroying the physical versions, nothing is lost. More importantly, once you've bought something it's yours, yours to read, yours to display, yours to destroy. On hacker news, of all places, the people fighting _against_ first sale doctrine is appalling. > Why has no-one cared to actually preserve the actually preserved book being sold by the bookseller... Bit of a strange question, that. Our definitions probably differ here but preserving is not storing a book, preserving is ensuring that even if this copy is destroyed the ideas inside live on. I think that people that hoard (actually) rare books without a thought or care to making sure the text inside is preserved for future generations out of some desire to simply own something rare are the actually monsters here. And let's dispose with the notion that booksellers are "preserving" books, they are holding inventory, inventory they were happy to sell to Amazon/etc. If AI companies were raiding museums at gunpoint we'd be having a different discussion. They are buying books for sale, if they keep them in a library at corporate or scan and destroy them it makes no difference. |
|
|
|
|
