(<- that's what propaganda does by definition)

e.g.

> but ethically, it’s an extremely serious crime against humanity.

Who are you that you consider it a serious crime against humanity? What are you a saint?

> Knowledge is permanently monopolized on private servers.

Throughout human history, it's the knowledge/info that provide one with wealth and advantage over others.

With the author's logic, every single private knowledge the author is not sharing is an extremely serious crime against humanity.

The logic of the writing is not correct.

- Reinforcing outdated, disproved or otherwise incorrect information.

- Reinforcing outdated forms of communication e.g purple prose.

You could counter both by giving more weight to recent text and I suppose the extra data may help for tracing references and the evolution of ideas through history. If this is what they are resorting to it does feel more like "marginal gains" territory rather than ASI imminent territory

> Anthropic spent many millions of dollars to purchase millions of print books, often in used condition. Then, its service providers stripped the books from their bindings, cut their pages to size, and scanned the books into digital form — discarding the paper originals. Each print book resulted in a PDF copy containing images of the scanned pages with machine-readable text (including front and back cover scans for softcover books). Anthropic created its own catalog of bibliographic metadata for the books it was acquiring. It acquired copies of millions of books, including of all works at issue for all Authors. Anthropic may have copied portions of Authors’ books on other occasions, too — such as while copying book reviews, academic papers, internet blogposts, or the like for its central library. And, Anthropic’s scanning service providers may have copied Authors’ print books along the way to delivering the final digital copies to Anthropic. But neither side here specifically raises legal issues implicated by any such copies. Nor will this order

Also the summary:

> To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.

https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bar...

I wish people cared 25 years ago. Unwanted books in boxes are everywhere. Its a false hysteria. You can still get any book you want, digitizing is the best bet for more readership.

* download and publish a book as an individual -> 100% lifetime jail + 10x your whole lifetime earnings/revenue - Aaron Swartz

* download and publish a book as a company -> fine 1% of revenue

* scan and publish a book as an individual -> legal issues, 100x fines of your yearly 50k donations

* scan and "publish/train" a book as a company -> okay, lets ban chinese models, they are distilling your model

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49383026

The big thing here is: libraries and the book trade destroy millions of books every year. If you clean your attic out, box up all your old books, and bring them to your local library donation box, they'll quickly sort through it for things that might actually circulate, and the rest go right to the recycling center.

A lot of people in these comment threads seem not to understand that destruction is part of the natural lifecycle of a book. Books generally don't get preserved.

And then there's the problem that the original reporting that kicked all this off, at 404, is specific about what is meant by "rare books". It's not, as they say, first editions of Oliver Twist. Rather, these are books nobody cares about; that's what makes them rare in the first place. Vanity press stuff, or manuals for old equipment that isn't produced anymore. All these books would naturally end up a dumpster.

Much like the pushback we are seeing from the citizenry against things like Flock and AI datacenters, we can push _forward_ too by ensuring important institutions (legal or otherwise) remain funded

And about what topic have I heard more complaints in the last 15 years (although the latter topic is just a few months old)?

Why is that?

If you say that I'm indeed wrong, and the latter one IS indeed much more important, then please tell me why? What is wrong with me then?

I do wonder who is running PR at the major AI companies, as they seem rather insensate to how they are perceived...