Thread

1. zirkonit · 1790265261 · focus · HN ↗

   Our family volunteers at a nonprofit that moves a huge number of books. We take donations and run massive charity sales, clearing tens of thousands of books a month. Pricing works like a ladder: you try to sell a book for a couple of bucks, then for a dollar, then by the $5 bag, then for free, and you still end up with thousands of books nobody wants even at no cost. These used to go straight to pulp. Now they go to AI labs for scanning. Would we rather they were read, or at least owned, by someone? Yes. Is scanning better than turning them into toilet paper? Yes, even if only marginally.

   I'm sure the Anthropics of the world have shredded the last known copies of plenty of titles. But nobody talks about the last known copies that get pulped every day simply because there are so many books nobody wants and storing them is expensive.

   1. icantevenhold · 1790266807 · focus · HN ↗

      Why do they shred them at all instead of donating or selling them again?

      1. andrew_lettuce · 1790266988 · focus · HN ↗

         My understanding is they cut off the binding for scanning. They'd have to resell it donate by the page

         1. ChickeNES · 1790268377 · focus · HN ↗

            They have to destroy the copy either way for it to be fair use (according to Bartz v Anthropic). Cutting the bindings off is already the faster method to scan, and once you're required to pulp the original anyway, it becomes a no-brainer.

            1. shagie · 1790270025 · focus · HN ↗

               The wording doesn&#x27;t exactly say that. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.akingump.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;web&#x2F;h6WFidTYyTnoNEPehPXMYu&#x2F;auvY7D&#x2F;bartz-v-anthropic_231_24-cv-5417.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.akingump.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;web&#x2F;h6WFidTYyTnoNEPehPXMYu&#x2F;auvY7D...

               The relevant part of the ruling starts on page 27.

                   For the print library copies that Anthropic purchased and then converted into digital library copies, Anthropic already enjoyed entitlement to keep the copies in its library. The purpose of the copying was to keep them in its library but with more favorable storage and searchability properties. Copying the entire work was exactly what this purpose required. There was no surplus copying. The source copy was destroyed.
                   The third fair use factor favors fair use for the purchased library copies converted from print to digital.
               

               Fair use favors the destruction to avoid accidental surplus copying of the source material. It doesn&#x27;t require it. If Anthropic put everything in a warehouse, they could keep it in the warehouse... but they couldn&#x27;t do anything with them afterwards. They couldn&#x27;t sell them as books or donate them as that would mean that it wasn&#x27;t fair use and copyright infringement would have taken place once that additional copy was distributed again. At that point, fair use and economics both favor destroying the original.

               If I make a DVD copy of an old VHS tape that I own, that&#x27;s fair use format shifting. I can keep the VHS tape without issue. I cannot donate it to the library or put it out in a garage sale. When I got rid of my VHS player, I threw out VHS tapes too since they were of no use and only cluttered my shelf.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.