TL;DR: AI companies are secretly buying, scanning, and destroying millions of physical books to train their models, permanently locking human knowledge inside private corporate servers. Anna’s Archive is urgently calling on volunteers worldwide to scan and upload books before this cultural heritage disappears forever.

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 53 points 3 months ago

For me if it is not possible to scan something non-destructively then it is acceptable to destroy one copy to share with many. It is not acceptable to destroy a book for non-preservation purposes.

Also they are probably destroying many copies of the same books over and over.

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 3 months ago (30 children)

    And don't destroy the physical copies?!

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 3 months ago* (26 children)

    The thing the headlines keep skipping over in pursuit of outrage-clicks is that this is how you scan books in bulk. The spine is removed and the pages are fed through a high-speed scanner in sequence.

    And the books that these companies are scanning this way are not "rare" in the sense of Gutenberg bibles or first-editions of famous works. These are books that have been sitting untouched in libraries or warehouses for decades because nobody wants them and their alternative fate is simply to be pulped and recycled. AI companies aren't interested in quality, they're interested in quantity. It would indeed be nice if they'd release the results of doing these scans to the public, of course, but that's where copyright raises its head to ruin everything. They're just following the law, unfortunately.

    I'm all for getting more books scanned and uploaded to Anna's Archive. But that's a separate issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You are correct.

    Just want to add one thing, there MUCH easier ways now than those kind of setups. Its just not as cheap/accessible. I worked at a library and there is specific setups for certain kinds of books you cannot reproduce and still need to get a good scan in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Is it one of those setups with a glass wedge the partly-open book is placed on with two digital cameras under it to photograph the pages? I've seen those contraptions, they're neat and I'd love to have one for my personal library someday.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    The thing the headlines keep skipping over in pursuit of outrage-clicks is that this is how you scan books in bulk. The spine is removed and the pages are fed through a high-speed scanner in sequence.

    Any particular reason why can't you just rebind the book after? Even if it is with a different binding.

    (And no, I don't mean I'll take "capitalism" for an answer)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    I can imagine a couple of reasons.

    The most straightforward one actually is "capitalism", but maybe if I explain it a bit you'll accept it? :) I expect that the vast majority of the books that these companies are scanning are bought in bulk from wholesalers at the cheapest possible price, since the goal is quantity over quality. That means they're probably buying the leftover books that the wholesalers are just one short step away from sending off to be recycled into pulp anyway. So re-binding them would mean they're still left with nearly-worthless books that nobody else wanted to buy. It's like those book sales libraries have from time to time, they put out the books that are scheduled for "disposal" in hopes that somebody will pick up a few before they go into the dumpster.

    The other reason depends on the physical nature of the book. There's lots of different book binding techniques and not all of them will leave you with something that's easy to put back together. Lots of books are made up of smaller subunits of pages called "signatures", typically 8, 16, or 32 pages, that get stitched together into the finished product. There are coil-bound books, comb-bound books, all sorts of things like that. A lot of them probably wouldn't leave pages that are amenable to a one-size-fits-all rebinding. So that makes things a lot more costly, and again that's a cost that produces a book that's probably worthless for resale anyway.

    Honestly I suspect that getting chopped and scanned is the best case scenario for most of the books in this situation. It converts them to digital form, rescuing their contents from being lost. The thing that bugs me is just how these companies squirrel away their hoards of books from the public. And the blame for that lies largely on copyright law, so I can't blame them too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    After actually reading some of these articles, even the sellers of the rarers books stated that they were sellling stock they otherwise wouldn't. So yes, it's rare but no one wanted it.

    The best case scenario is they just dump the books in full online using First Sale Doctrine. This way we don't lose the texts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    That means they’re probably buying the leftover books that the wholesalers are just one short step away from sending off to be recycled into pulp anyway. So re-binding them would mean they’re still left with nearly-worthless books that nobody else wanted to buy.

    Well, who's talking about trying to sell them? Once again: capitalism. Rebinding the books would allow them to be sent to a physical archive in a usable way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    Well, who's talking about buying?

    How else do you think they got the books?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    My understanding is, by buying them. But that does not mean they have to do the same. They are filthy rich, they can afford to rebind and donate the books.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    But donate them to whom? The books were one step away from the pulpers when they bought them in the first place, who's going to take them that values them more than that?

    Also, these companies are not charities. What do they gain out of all that extra expense?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Also, these companies are not charities

    AI companies are filthy rich (at our expense).

    They can afford to donate books.

    Once again: "capitalism" is not the answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    In another comment regarding these books, you said:

    They can keep both for all I care, tbh.

    So it really seems you're just insisting on this because you think it will make things harder for them. You don't care about the books or who they go to in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    First, I can not save everyone, nor would I accept the ridiculous moral imposition you attempt that I should to.

    Second, I said they can keep the books and also that nothing (except the invented rules of capitalism) prevents them from not only not doing so but also from donating the books to a party dedicated to preserving them, like an archive. I'm also perfectly aware that just because they could do so, that does not make such a generously receiving party automagically exist. Once again, I can't do all the work. I'd expect someone like them or you would be doing their part, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    There's no use, those books barely have any cultural value. They're unsold inventory, why would you pay to rebind them ? Nobody wants to buy them anyway.

    Books (as in the physical object itself) are not rare or particularly precious they're among the most mass produced objects in the modern world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This reminds me of a book I read recently. I get like 30 $1 paperbacks at the library used book sale every spring / fall. When I'm done reading them they go on the unit book cart for the patients unless theyre wildly objectionable (and it takes a lot for me, I recently put out some only mildly tasteful furry badger shapeshifter smut).

    Anyway this year I got something called "the king's hounds" where the back summary sounded lit but it turned out to be super rapey (like Sean Connery bond just keep doing it until they shut up rapey). And it's been sitting on my coffee table collecting dust since I finished it because it feels wrong to just throw it away but I'm definitely not giving it to my patients (who like, ALL have rape PTSD for some reason). I probably will wind up throwing it out but. Fuck. It just feels wrong to destroy a book for some reason even though that's probably the only thing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    I remember reading somewhere that there was a legal component to the destruction too. If they destroy the original it's a transformation form physical to digital but if they don't it's a copy which can be illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Of course this would be when they care about copyright when they obviously being ignore it when it suits them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    First people complained about them pirating, now people are complaining about them following copyright. It should be clear at this point that the people complaining don't really care about either, they just don't like AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    What are you talking about? These companies scanned a copy and destroyed the original on purpose. Any legal claim that the company had to the backup is null and void.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Unfortunately it's a lot easier and quicker to scan a book if you remove the spine, since it's then just a bunch of pages that can be fed through an auto feeder. Proper book scanners that turn pages are slow and expensive.

    I don't like the idea of destroying books, but it's certainly a lot less unsavoury to destroy a single copy to create a publicly available archive.

    Not all, in fact probably the minority, of rare books have anything special about their binding. There's one reference book I've been looking for a copy of that was only published 20 years ago in paperback, but copies regularly sell for £150+ on ebay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    I was in that situation with a textbook costing about twice that. Ended up borrowing from the library and digitizing it myself using a camera mounted on the back of a hardwood chair with the book lying flat on the ground. In hindsight it would have been good with a glass plate to press the pages, but I unwarped the pages automatically using some open source software. In the end it turned out quite good, but probably spent 6 hrs or something on the ordeal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago

    fyi, they’ve been doing this for at least a year, if not more.

    I believe this social issue cannot be fix without an actual bloody revolution.😔

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    ooh reminds me it's time to reup my donation for the month

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Do they provide guides to diy scanning in a non-destructive manner? To better influence people to do it.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Welcome back, Nazi book burnings. We didn't miss you.

  • source