>>EA-316+45
> any rare books were destroyed in this proces

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.

In the same spirit, I think I can safely assume that they violated copyright law, since they earn money by circumventing it, and fair use doesn't like for-profit copying.

[0]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/meta-beats-copyrigh...

>>JohnFe+x3
You got suckered by the clickbait. Destructive scanning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_scanning#Destructive_scan...) isn't unusual for books that are common enough that an individual volume is of no particular value.

>>bayind+(OP)
Reuters news on the lawsuit

>>44375269

>>igor47+3e
Interestingly there was a real attempt to build an E-Puzzler for shredded documents, to reconstruct the torn Stasi files after the German reunification. But while the system worked for defined stuff, but failed for mass reconstruction of documents with different formats:

https://www.bundesarchiv.de/en/stasi-records-archive/the-rec...

>>bayind+(OP)
More discussion:

A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

>>44367850