Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Related:
AI companies are shredding rare books
- Yes it is probably due to AI training. The clue is that it's bulk orders driving the increase.
The annoying thing about the article is the hand wringing. If anything this is the least dubious way to acquire training material. They are paying the correct party to get that material. AI training is at least as transformative as throwing the words into an inverted index for web search.
One thing this demonstrates is that there's still training material to be mined that's original, and high enough quality to have been published on paper. This source of material won't get mined out until all the similar material originally written in major foreign languages get scanned and translated for training purposes. We are in the gentle slopes of the lower foothills of the never gonna be AGI so I'll call it singularity.
by Zigurd - The issue people have with it isn't about copyright. It's about how offensive it is that AI companies are mass buying and then destroying physical books by the millions. It's the same reason people were outraged when those two fools chopped down the ancient Sycamore tree at Hadrian's Wall. "But it's just a tree!"
No, it isn't. It's much, much more than that. There is something inherently revolting about pulping billions of pages of literature. Whether they paid people for the books is completely besides the point.
by EA0707 - > If anything this is the least dubious way to acquire training material.
Yeah, I emotionally felt a little upset because books are being destroyed and I don't like that. But rationally, this seems very much like a win-win.
The second hand bookstores are getting revenue that they otherwise wouldn't be which means they have an easier time staying in business. AI companies get their materials legally. And it possibly pushes a second publishing run which ultimately benefits authors.
I think the only way this is possibly "bad" is if a rare/hard to get book is destroyed from these ventures. That would be horrible. But I doubt that's very likely as there's almost no such thing as a rare book that AI trainers would be particularly interested in.
by cogman10 - Don't all these AI companies run at negative margins? How do they afford to buy all the books in the world?
I don't see how these companies are not already bankrupt given how much they subsidize
by solenoid0937 - The same way they can afford to build new data centres - they get investment money.by gambiting
- > How do they afford to buy all the books in the world?
You are on a VC website at first place, what question is this?
- You should look at the first decade of other capital-intensive companies, like FedEx or spacex.
The whole point of investment in private companies is to subsidize u profitable operations. If companies came out the gate being profitable they wouldn’t need investors.
by brookst - Regarding subsidy/profits: Anthropic at least seems to be on track to report a profitable Q2 2026
> Anthropic has projected revenue of at least $10.9 billion for the second quarter of 2026, more than double the previous quarter, on track for its first quarterly operating profit of $559 million.
https://www.reuters.com/business/anthropic-ipo-valuation-hin...
by imenani - 1786782923 | Secondhand UK and Irish booksellers suspect AI firms behind strange bulk orders | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/15/uk-irelan... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49308856
- It's because of American law. If it were sane, everyone could share. Instead, if there are 25 copies of a book in existence, 25 different AI companies could buy them and pulp them. Woe be it if some company's lawyer has decided that they need to buy a new copy for each model they train.
Otherwise, I think it's good that books are being scanned. Please, AI companies, keep all of the scans, clean them so they can be compressed tightly, back them up to an insane degree, encourage your employees to make their own archives and share them with their friends, and leak them to libgen, annas-archive, etc.
by pessimizer - The copyright law here is broken in general.
If there are only 25 copies and it's impossible to buy a new copy from the publisher, who's actually getting hurt if you "pirate" that book? How can anyone claim losses if they clearly don't want your money for a new copy.
by ajsnigrutin - Books are seemingly more expensive than ever but paradoxically declining in material and substantial quality (i.e., are poorly edited and printed). Buying used books is just good financial sense.
- We're no longer an economy that produces things to be consumed, but rather one that produces things that increase consumption.
Could be the makings of a dark age.
- Is that really the case? Anecdotally but I remember new releases cost more historically.by infecto
- I don't know about globally but in the US anything that isn't sure to be a mass market item is going to be print on demand. While there's some perfectly good print on demand out there, it's often of lower quality than conventional printing.by Zigurd
- Exactly this. I'm not entirely certain AI has anything to do with it but my last book purchases have been entirely used.
Our local independent book shop got together with a couple other dozen and started a used book platform. If I have a book I don't want, I'll let them know, if they have a buyer, I just bring it to them and get a small amount of money. They take a fee for the handling and everyone's happy. A used book is usually max half the price of new and there is a decently wide selection.
A lot of online retailers have also started stocking used books as a cheaper alternative.
by mschild - My preferred book format is also the mass-market paperback, which the current publishing industry has decided should no longer exist, probably because they found they could not charge over $20 for them.
I can also find decades' worth of quality books for prices that sometimes drop below $1 (though popular / rare books are frequently sold for more than their original asking price now, but inflation-adjusted, that is still a good deal, and much less than a new book). There is no reason to expect that just because something was just published recently that it is worth many multiples the cost of an older book. I will still buy new books to support authors I particularly like, but as prices keep going up, I find I am becoming more and more selective.
And finally, physical books do not spy on me or show me ads, or otherwise try to coerce me into an abusive relationship, like every other form of entertainment seems to attempt to do these days.
by derf_ - You can donate to Anna's archive with over 20 different payment methods. It's one of the best ways to preserve and distribute knowledge.by Cider9986
- Too bad that website doesn't work for me. The "checking your browser" screen just reloads infinitely.
- Whatever judge ruled that it was legal to scan and use books if and only if you DESTROY a copy of the book was truly a moron. The law gets bent by judges all the time to be practical and fair, they should have used this opportunity to give a more sane ruling.by chis
- by esafak
- Fairly certain precedent has already determined copyright is violated at the time of duplication regardless if destroyed afterword. This judge clearly didn't want to bother with this headache of a case.by alekovine
- The ruling did not say that. This has been widely misreported. The books are destroyed because it's much easier and faster to cut off the spine and use a sheet fed scanner. Non destructive scanners are much slower.by imperio59
- What's the point in attacking the judge? Judges just apply the law as they find it, by analyzing the wording of the legislation and any binding precedents from previous cases. The judge is only a "moron" if they stated a point of law which is actually wrong (wrong in the sense of being contrary to the law, not wrong in the sense that you don't like it), and even then "moron" would be a pretty harsh assessment unless it's a glaring mistake. It's often the case that the law isn't obvious or entirely clear and judges have to make their best effort to work out the correct meaning. Even then, their job is to apply what they think the law intended to say, not what they think is morally the best interpretation.
If you really must call someone a moron, you should direct it at the legislators who made the law (or left it sufficiently unclear) which resulted in the judge's conclusion.
by jbstack - What was the supposed reasoning there? That the company can’t resell the books to profit or let others read or scan them?by rdtsc
- The result is moronic but given the confines a judge is operating what else could he do? Is it legal for you to buy a book and tear it down? The problem is the law, and the people who vote for the legislative bodies not asking more from their representatives.by Iolaum
- I thought they were destroyed just because they rip out the spine to scan them more easily?by lucas_codes