6 ms·

Making the contents of the books available verbatim afterward would be a less bad option, yes. That's not happening though.

• rpdillon 1mo ago
  Right, but that's because of copyright law.
  • _djo_ 1mo ago
    Have you seen AI companies making any effort, with their newfound immense power to get the attention of lawmakers, to lobby for amendments to copyright law to make this exercise a less destructive exercise? Because none are.
    • rpdillon 29d ago
      Why would they? They're not the ones upset that they're cutting up books. They fought a court case to allow them to do it a different way that didn't require cutting up any books. They were shut down and had to pay billions, and so they're doing it the only legal way that is left to them. This is literally what the publishers asked for. If they wanted a different way, they're the copyright lobby. They are making all the rules. They can change it.
      • _djo_ 29d ago
        Those poor AI companies, they’re the real victims here! /s There are several things to criticise here, including the US’s terrible copyright laws and the publishers involved in that case who care more about in-print than out-of-print books. But it’s the AI companies that are actively buying up and destroying books at an unprecedented scale, which is an action they’re choosing do to and certainly don’t have to do. Therefore that’s also where the immediate focus and attention needs to be