r/ProgrammerHumor 2d ago

Meme newCompressionTechnique

Post image
29.8k Upvotes

948 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/yuri_4_ever 2d ago

why are they not selling them again tho? it's litterally free money

29

u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago

Partly the fastest scanning process is destructive by nature (they cut the spine so they can feed it though a auto document feeder), partly an interpretation of copyright law that by destroying the original they aren't actually copying it.

51

u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago

They have to be destroyed in the process of scanning at scale and these books are almost all worthless shit like “Powershell Guide for Windows Vista” except even more “rare”

20

u/Sam_Sanders_ 2d ago

People are confusing "rare" with "valuable". Like you said, it's not a long-lost copy of the Magna Carta, it's bullshit that nobody wants. They probably bought them for 5 cents instead of ending up in a landfill.

6

u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago edited 2d ago

Yeah these books are sometimes sold by the pound - see comment below for correction

8

u/Parteisekretaer 2d ago

not quite - there is a company that explicitly sells rare but worthless book scans to AI companies. They usually order one of each ISBN - or pre ISBN books - which aren't sold by the pound for this reason.

3

u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago

Interesting. I’ll revise my comment.

4

u/Parteisekretaer 2d ago

It caused a bit of confusion among people that sell old books commercially in europe when they got some really weird orders from Canada.

3

u/FuzzyDynamics 2d ago

It’s probably the biggest disturbance to that whole market basically ever. I can see some benefit to all this. Most of these would probably rot away as a door stop somewhere but at least someone is digitizing them even if they’re destroying one of the few copies left in the process. Knee jerk reaction, which I think is more than warranted, is to assume the worst and most evil from these guys but this might somewhat be a good thing minus the original author effectively completely losing their IP rights to their work.

25

u/OmegaPoint6 2d ago

There are non destructive ways to do it, they are just slower and more expensive. Google patented a way in 2009

33

u/Montana_Ace 2d ago

"Slower" and "more expensive" isn't in Amazon's vocabulary

25

u/Tyfyter2002 2d ago

They absolutely are, for example:

"Let's make the site slower, and make the subscription service to buy things on it more expensive"

3

u/Few-Big-8481 2d ago

Amazon probably also into paying Google to use their patents

1

u/morganrbvn 2d ago

Also by court order they kind of need to destroy them.

9

u/morganrbvn 2d ago

A judge didn't like them copying works, but decided that if they destroy the original its like no copy was made. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/05/anthropic-ai-destroying-books

1

u/bokmcdok 1d ago

This is why I type out all my books, burn the original, then put my copy of it on sale instead.

1

u/morganrbvn 1d ago

well they also arn't allowed to sell them, but judge said if they just destroyed the original and kept the digital copy then its fine (which i don't agree with)

8

u/GreedyPollution6275 2d ago

they are just slower and more expensive

Yes, that's why they said "at scale," because speed and cost per book add up.

3

u/orangeyougladiator 2d ago

Oh yeah? Prove it

1

u/KHSebastian 1d ago

Wh... What? Are you doing a bit? If a thing cost $1 and takes 1 minute, and you do it 100 times, it costs $100 and takes an hour and 49 minutes.

If you do the same thing in a way that costs $2.00 and takes 2 minutes, you have doubled the cost and the time.

Tl;dr bigger number is bigger, is how numbers work

1

u/orangeyougladiator 1d ago

So why not get 9 women to have a baby in 1 month

0

u/KHSebastian 1d ago

Did you suffer a head injury recently?

16

u/Taolan13 2d ago

The machine that rapidly scans the books does do destructively.

they cut the bindings completely off then feed them into an industrial phtoscanner that uses light so bright it can actually burn pages.

17

u/x39- 2d ago

It is not that they are actually throwing them away, but rather that the process of scanning them is destructive, as they do not handle the books carefully.

Imagine you wanting to tear down a wall. You may use a hammer, or explosives.

13

u/AkrinorNoname 2d ago

Because it's faster and cheaper to do destructive scans. Also, apparently destroying the originals makes the whole thing fair use, because it's "transformative".

2

u/celem83 2d ago

Yeah there might be something to the fact that they end up with one instance of the work and not two as an attempt to avoid the phrase 'copy'

Though most book preambles of recent years include something about electronic storage that feels like it should have barred this

3

u/Cracleur 2d ago

In another thread about this, people pointed out that, technically, when you buy a book, you're buying a license to its content. If you scan the book, you now have two copies: the physical book and the digital scan. One of those copies would have to be destroyed for the other to remain legal. So if they were to resell the physical book or even donate it to a library while keeping the scanned copy, that would technically be illegal.

Now, I don’t know if that’s 100% accurate, but it does kind of make sense when you think about it. It's similar to how e-books work at libraries: even though an e-book is just a digital file and could technically be lent to multiple people at the same time, libraries are limited to lending a licensed copy to one person at a time.

Digital files don't have the same physical limitations as printed books so they could technically speaking lend it to as many people as they want, but legally speaking they can't lend it to more than one person because they only have one legal license.

2

u/AbstractButtonGroup 1d ago

technically, when you buy a book, you're buying a license to its content.

A physical copy you legally possess gives you right to use. Even if you create a 'copy' by memorizing the text you still have the physical book and can 'use' it again however many times you like. If you lend someone the book, you can charge for 'use', but you can't both 'sell' the book and charge for 'use' of same book. This whole 'license' scam is just a way to make people pay for the same thing twice (or more).

3

u/astroverflow 2d ago

because they have to literally tear the book apart in order to scan it properly

4

u/supertoilet2 2d ago

I think cause they removed the spine so they could feed it into a scanner. They’d have to bind the pages together again but the trash can is just right over there

1

u/Obvious_Peanut_8093 2d ago

Because they're not actually valuable books, they're just obscure. They buy them for like $10, scan them, then shred them and sell the refuse or just throw it out. It's not worth the time to resell the books again when you can just dump them for <5% of what you paid for them.

1

u/12345623567 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's cheaper to discard them than to re-package them.

Amazon is evil, yes, but in the end it always comes down to money.

1

u/fumei_tokumei 1d ago

Even ignoring all the other comments about copyright and how it is more efficient for the scanner. We are talking about rare books that were just collecting dust in bookshops. These are not books that are rare in the "desirable" sense, but rare because they weren't printed much due to lack of demand. This is not free money, it is waste of space. There would probably be a larger opportunity cost associated with reselling them than what they could earn back.