fiddlewheelx
721
40
2
Are we talking about old books that catalogues citizens of cities from before 1920?
Are we talking about rare books that have not seen a lot of reprints?
We need names. It is a fucking travesty, but I think we need to know which books, not just "rare books".
foxpotate
We are watching the second burning of the library of Alexandria. Worse still these stupid fucking AIs are hardcoded to not show original data sets and even if they could they can't even shit the data back out correctly. Mostly because LLMs are just chatbots crossed with next word prediction models but given infinitely larger data sets. It doesn't help, they still fuck everything up.
YuffieK
REOJackwagon
https://www.geekwire.com/2026/how-an-airtag-planted-by-a-reporter-led-to-a-secret-amazon-site-where-old-books-are">/">https://www.geekwire.com/2026/how-an-airtag-planted-by-a-reporter-led-to-a-secret-amazon-site-where-old-books-are-cut-apart-and-scanned/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/08/17/ai-companies-are-buying-and-destroying-antique-books-heres-why/
NinjaCongo
Thank you!
NinjaCongo
@OP, put these sources in the description text!
seenunseen
We're mostly talking books that had small circulation and never gained a following because they weren't that good..which is how they became rare
NinjaCongo
You have a source for this claim?
wejustdontknow
Popularity and quality and importance are all very different things. Most of what we know about Shakespeares life comes from business records. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it has no value.
fiddlewheelx
Maybe, but destroying even the bad ones isn't a good excuse.
evilspock
We destroy books all the time. Frankly - they destroy themselves. Most books are not printed on acid-free archival paper and kept in a pure climate and moisture controlled atmosphere. They dry out, they rot, bugs get in, and most importantly the librarians and other custodians cull them to make room for a flood of new books. Their lifespan is limited.
I have yet to see one actual title mentioned. But boy they're getting clicks!
"Rare" isn't necessarily "valuable" or "useful" or "wanted".
seenunseen
Yeah, but it's not like they're destroying the last copy. The headline is designed to rage bait. It's really a nothing burger
Scobragon
Kissing techbro ass is the most pathetic thing you can be caught doing.
fiddlewheelx
Nah, we can't ignore this, even if that is true.
It sets a bad precedent, and if they get away with bad ones, then they will start going after more important ones.
But we can't know this before we get a list.
FeedTheNachoMan
They're legally required to destroy the books they purchase to scan because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's the same legal bullshit that makes libraries only have so many digital ebooks to lend out.
getadogupya
The process of scanning them, destroys the book... unless you think they could, or would put them back together.
NinjaCongo
It does no such thing. Scanning books without destroying them and then selling (or even donating!) them is perfectly doable, but the act of destroying them is what makes it legal, in a particularly fucked up ruling by US courts. See the sources provided above.
FeedTheNachoMan
There are methods that exist to scan books without damaging them, but like I said, they are required BY LAW to destroy the physical copy of the book they scan because of the DMCA.
17 U.S. Code ยง 1201a-2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
getadogupya
Are they only destroying works covered by this law?
evilspock
That is *so* not what that law says.
What technological measure do you propose is being circumvented? This is about things like encrypted e-books.