BUT... here's the only line in that whole article that really matters, because this is a headline meant to create an impression that isn't corrected for quite a while.
> The court documents don't indicate that any rare books were destroyed in this process—Anthropic purchased its books in bulk from major retailers
Books are routinely pulped and recycled, they aren't holy, and if they aren't rare then frankly who cares what techniques they use to scan them? The issue is whether or not "AI" learning represents fair use, which the courts so far have ruled that it does.
Does it matter? It's waste at the end of the day. Instead they could have bought e-books. Just because we can recycle paper, it doesn't mean we have the luxury to create waste as we see fit, esp. when climate change became this severe.
> which the courts so far have ruled that it does.
Any concrete cases you can cite?
From [0], for example, while the course said that the authors failed to argue their case, the second observation is complete opposite of what you said. Citing the article directly:
Opinion suggests AI models do generally violate law.
[0]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/meta-beats-copyrigh...
As someone who finds the act objectionable, I actually do think this is an important point. Destroying commodity books in this way is objectionable. Destroying precious books in this way would be abominable.