• DFX4509B@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Good luck breaking down people’s doors for scanning their own physical books for their personal use when analog media has no DRM and can’t phone home, and paper books are an analog medium.

    That would be like kicking down people’s doors for needle-dropping their LPs to FLAC for their own use and to preserve the physical records as vinyl wears down every time it’s played back.

    • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It sounds like transferring an owned print book to digital and using it to train AI was deemed permissable. But downloading a book from the Internet and using it was training data is not allowed, even if you later purchase the pirated book. So, no one will be knocking down your door for scanning your books.

      This does raise an interesting case where libraries could end up training and distributing public domain AI models.

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 minutes ago

        I would actually be okay with libraries having those AI services. Even if they were available only for a fee it would be absurdly low and still waived for people with low or no income.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The ruling explicitly says that scanning books and keeping/using those digital copies is legal.

      The piracy found to be illegal was downloading unauthorized copies of books from the internet for free.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          57 minutes ago

          Archive.org was distributing the books themselves to users. Anthropic argued (and the authors suing them weren’t able to show otherwise) that their software prevents users from actually retrieving books out of the LLM, and that it only will produce snippets of text from copyrighted works. And producing snippets in the context of something else is fair use, like commentary or criticism.