4 ms·

Forget publishing, companies like misanthropic are buying rare books and destroying it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-millions-of-

Forget publishing, companies like misanthropic are buying rare books and destroying it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-millions-of-print-books-to-build-its-ai-models/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli...

drivebyhooting 3mo ago
What do you mean?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- KolmogorovComp 3mo ago
  To scan them, they usually have to resort breaking them into individual pages.
- taude 3mo ago
  they're refering to this: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-destroying-rare-books https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-de...
- wonnage 3mo ago
  https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-millions-of-print-books-to-build-its-ai-models/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli... The scanning process destroys the book.
  - jazzyjackson 3mo ago
    Note it doesn't have to, it's just faster to. Internet Archive scans their books one page at a time keeping the book intact and stored in a warehouse.
    - usef- 3mo ago
      They do: the judge in the Anthropic case said that destroying them means that the text is being transferred, and so therefore can be fair use. > "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other." (I believe the reasoning is that the author is not being financially disadvantaged by more copies of their book existing). So the current law prefers them to destroy.
      - golem14 3mo ago
        Rare books seldom are under copyright and that’s not a concern then.
        usef- 3mo ago
        Is that easy to tell for each book, though? I usually hear that it's extremely hard to track down the copyright owners for many older things. That's the reason the film/video industry often gives for not digitising the backlog online, and I would expect their volume to be much easier to handle than the book industry.
        golem14 3mo ago
        It’s not easy, but there are good heuristics. If it fetches 10s of thousands at an auction, like an original Gutenberg bible or something, don’t destroy. If it’s my thesis from high school, destroying while making a copy is ok. It’s really not important to come with a totally bulletproof 100% accurate rule here.
jsphweid 3mo ago
When they do this, are they buying a single copy of say Book A and destroying a single Book A copy? Or are they buying every copy they can find of Book A and destroying all of them?
- ComputerPerson 3mo ago
  Elon recently (2d) tweeted about making sure they preserve rare books and "scan them the hard way". That tweet launched a cultural wave of opposition regarding the debinding of rare books. The discussion has been around, but it's flared significantly recently. Not sure if that's what the person you're responding to is specifically inflamed about. Regardless, old/rare books are certainly being acquired and destroyed.
  - gowld 3mo ago
    No, he didn't tweeted about "making sure" of anything. Elon tweeted "I’ve asked the SpaceXAI team to preserve any rare books in a library and scan them the hard way vs just cutting off the spine and scanning" which is no sense a credible source for what he actually asked SpaceXAI team to do, or if they are doing it, or what they were doing before yesterday. Elon has an extremely long and thorough track record of lying. https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2081844165881594362 https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2081844165881594362
    - ComputerPerson 3mo ago
      Sure, I'm ambivalent to his veracity. The problem remains either way. Small operations around the globe are debinding rare/unique books. I'm involved with an organization considering (not strongly) that exactly.
- xyzzy123 3mo ago
  Hi, shredding the book is to reduce potential legal liability of format shifting - if you shred the book after scanning, the theory is you are not increasing the number of copies. This has come up as a factor in legal rulings. The legality of format shifting is still murky though, and the legality of training on the work are a separate question.

drivebyhooting 3mo ago

What do you mean?

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
KolmogorovComp 3mo ago
To scan them, they usually have to resort breaking them into individual pages.
taude 3mo ago
they're refering to this: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-destroying-rare-books https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-de...
wonnage 3mo ago
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-millions-of-print-books-to-build-its-ai-models/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli... The scanning process destroys the book.
- jazzyjackson 3mo ago
  Note it doesn't have to, it's just faster to. Internet Archive scans their books one page at a time keeping the book intact and stored in a warehouse.
  - usef- 3mo ago
    They do: the judge in the Anthropic case said that destroying them means that the text is being transferred, and so therefore can be fair use. > "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other." (I believe the reasoning is that the author is not being financially disadvantaged by more copies of their book existing). So the current law prefers them to destroy.
    - golem14 3mo ago
      Rare books seldom are under copyright and that’s not a concern then.
      - usef- 3mo ago
        Is that easy to tell for each book, though? I usually hear that it's extremely hard to track down the copyright owners for many older things. That's the reason the film/video industry often gives for not digitising the backlog online, and I would expect their volume to be much easier to handle than the book industry.
        golem14 3mo ago
        It’s not easy, but there are good heuristics. If it fetches 10s of thousands at an auction, like an original Gutenberg bible or something, don’t destroy. If it’s my thesis from high school, destroying while making a copy is ok. It’s really not important to come with a totally bulletproof 100% accurate rule here.

jsphweid 3mo ago

When they do this, are they buying a single copy of say Book A and destroying a single Book A copy? Or are they buying every copy they can find of Book A and destroying all of them?

ComputerPerson 3mo ago
Elon recently (2d) tweeted about making sure they preserve rare books and "scan them the hard way". That tweet launched a cultural wave of opposition regarding the debinding of rare books. The discussion has been around, but it's flared significantly recently. Not sure if that's what the person you're responding to is specifically inflamed about. Regardless, old/rare books are certainly being acquired and destroyed.
- gowld 3mo ago
  No, he didn't tweeted about "making sure" of anything. Elon tweeted "I’ve asked the SpaceXAI team to preserve any rare books in a library and scan them the hard way vs just cutting off the spine and scanning" which is no sense a credible source for what he actually asked SpaceXAI team to do, or if they are doing it, or what they were doing before yesterday. Elon has an extremely long and thorough track record of lying. https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2081844165881594362 https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2081844165881594362
  - ComputerPerson 3mo ago
    Sure, I'm ambivalent to his veracity. The problem remains either way. Small operations around the globe are debinding rare/unique books. I'm involved with an organization considering (not strongly) that exactly.
xyzzy123 3mo ago
Hi, shredding the book is to reduce potential legal liability of format shifting - if you shred the book after scanning, the theory is you are not increasing the number of copies. This has come up as a factor in legal rulings. The legality of format shifting is still murky though, and the legality of training on the work are a separate question.