Remix.run Logo
fc417fc802 10 hours ago

So if I scan a book, sell it, and keep using the scan, is that legal? (Spoiler: That's not legal. It's a violation of IP law.)

jdiff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Selling it is not allowed. The inability to sell it does not require its destruction.

inigyou 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But copyright law does, because otherwise you have two copies.

This isn't theoretical, AI companies have finished lawsuits about this and this was the ruling.

jdiff 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The ruling was that what they did was within the law, not required by law in every detail. They cannot resell the copies. I saw nothing in that ruling that required their destruction, because it is not required.

A person can digitize their own books without destroying the original. So can Anthropic. They are choosing to destroy the books for easier scanning and trying to palm off the blame for it.

flatline 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would a company keep the hard-copy around at the risk of it being inadvertently given away, resold, etc.? It's a huge outstanding liability given that the illegal copying of works -- the other part of that case -- is what they settled out of court for some huge amount of money. Destruction is the only thing that makes sense.

I'm old enough to have been around when DCMA legislation was under discussion. Many people were dead-set against it and raised concerns over matters exactly like this. In Rainbows End (2006), Vernor Vinge wrote about a similar scenario where a robot went through the university library shredding books, and scanned the shredded pieces to recombined them into a digital archive.

Anthropic may be doing shady things and may have even done this on their own recognizance, we just don't know. As it stand, this is 100% a consequence of US copyright law, much of which was written by large corporations to protect their own assets.

jdiff 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree fully that it makes logistical sense. But it is not a legal requirement, and they should not be permitted to use that as an excuse to wash their hands of their own decisions.

flatline 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I think I agree with you in spirit. I don’t like what these companies are doing, and Anthropic’s actions can for the most part stand on their own. Copyright law is just a special interest of mine, and I do think it’s important to recognize what external incentives exist and what they prioritize. Because other companies will act in similar manners under the same incentive structure, and the problem is going to cascade and magnify if it hasn’t already. There are active court rulings setting precedence for this behavior - take note!

toast0 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably, if you sell it after the copyright expires.