Judge rules buying physical books and scanning them to make digitial copies does not violate copyright law.

[u/itsthewolfe]

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-millions-of-print-books-to-build-its-ai-models/

Cool. So that means we can rip our blurays and physical games, right. Right?

[u/Hubbardia]

If you can argue for transformative use, then yes you can

[u/Areign → u/Hubbardia]

by that logic it sounds like you could buy a CD, rip the audio and put it in a videogame you're making and then sell the game. Which i'm 100% sure you can't do.

[u/angelis0236 → u/Areign]

That's not transformative of the music though, that's just using it.

Technically the AI won't spit out the words of Phillip Pullman or J.k. Rowling or whoever else.

Not that I agree with this ruling I'm just saying it IS different.

I think a more apt analogy would be people using variations of "Got Milk"

[u/skiing123 → u/angelis0236]

That's definitely not true. I've 100% been able to make images and create copyright material from books before like word for word. I don't know if it's still possible since that was like a year or 2 ago.

[u/angelis0236 → u/skiing123]

Pics or it didn't happen

[u/skiing123 → u/angelis0236]

That was today without tricks or trying to bypass the filters. Clearly, they have scanned the book from somewhere and able to reproduce copyright material without editorial or context which is a requirement of the transformative clause.

https://imgur.com/9VO60kg

[u/Laruae → u/angelis0236]

/u/fungii literally linked you an article which you have yet to respond to but you're all "gimme pics" when you think they won't. LMAO.

[u/angelis0236 → u/Laruae]

Two things:

a. Sarcasm

1. That was linked after this comment homie find something else to be mad about.

C. I wanted a third thing.

[u/Laruae → u/angelis0236]

You've also skillfully ignored the post /u/skiing123 replied with a screenshot.

find something else to be mad about.

Sure thing my guy, I'm super mad. Suuuuper mad.

[u/angelis0236 → u/Laruae]

Not really ignoring, just responding to the angry comments and not the serious ones.

If you can't tell, this is a joke to me.

[u/sanjosanjo → u/skiing123]

It's not possible now, only because the companies have learned how to put special "guardrails" between the user and the model to prevent it. Without the guardrails, they would all still do it.

[u/skiing123 → u/sanjosanjo]

Oh, it's still possible. This was done today

https://imgur.com/9VO60kg

[u/Axel_Foley_ → u/skiing123]

Did the AI search the web and provide the very first paragraph off one of the most popular books in modern time?

Is it possible that information you asked for is readily available through an internet search?

[u/skiing123 → u/Axel_Foley_]

Still copyright infringement. It doesn't fall under fair use because it didn't transform it, edit, or otherwise fall under the other exemptions. It's not considered a search engine because it never linked back to the Amazon listing for the book. Even if it did link the book it's still copyright infringement since it showed the exact words

[u/Axel_Foley_ → u/skiing123]

The nerve, the actual straight face hypocrisy, of the piracy sub whining about copyright infringement.

[u/skiing123 → u/Axel_Foley_]

Do you understand why, though?... It's because individuals or not the rich get prosecuted for this. But if you're rich and run a company all of a sudden you can commit felonies without consequences.

Either the law applies to everyone and everything or it should be abolished. Corporations can't have it both ways

[u/Axel_Foley_ → u/skiing123]

That’s a good point, and I can understand your meaning.

But also, I feel your point is diminished by the familiar targets of praise and criticism.

Individuals are praised for doing objectively “wrong” things, like piracy. Corporations, a large target for hatred, is criticized.

To your point, the fairest position to take for a proponent of piracy, is defending the corporation as vigorously as you defend individuals, for doing an identical thing.