These Google scans are also available in the HathiTrust [1], an organization built from the big academic libraries that participated in early book digitization efforts. The HathiTrust is better about letting the public read books that have actually fallen into the public domain. I have found many books that are "snippet view" only on Google Books but freely visible on HathiTrust.
If you are a student or researcher at one of the participating HathiTrust institutions, you can also get access to scans of books that are still in copyright.
The one advantage Google Books still has is that its search tools are much faster and sometimes better, so it can be useful to search for phrases or topics on Google Books and then jump over to HathiTrust to read specific books surfaced by the search.
HathiTrust is a fine example of a repository which is in theory useful but in practice all but useless.
Participation is limited to tertiary academic institutions, and possibly only four-year (rather than two-year) ones. This excludes local (city/county) libraries, as well as primary/secondary (grammar / middle / high school in the US) libraries.
Even public-domain records cannot be downloaded in whole, but rather can be saved one page at a time as PDFs. I'm pretty sure that those interested in more useful archival will and/or have created automated tools to do so, but HathiTrust remains the most notable point-of-access for such works, and the additional generation of conversion and republication further degrades the quality of original-publication formats. (It's less a problem for regenerated works from OCR'd or manually-converted documents, but those of course lose all the characteristics of original publication.)
And of course, many materials still under copyright are not accessible to the general public at all, no matter how obscure. I'd run into a case of this some months back trying to get a date attribution of an Alan Watts lecture which had been posted to HN:
Even with institutional login, HathiTrust does not show the full text online for this journal. It only permits searching and then showing the page numbers of the matches, which can be done without logging in.
But I think this journal does not contain the date.
Searching for "his religion" (with quotation marks) in volume 6 via HathiTrust shows a single match on page 11. Searching for the same text via the Google Books link from your other post shows the following entry among a list of what I assume are lectures:
> 919 Jesus: His Religion, Or The Religion About Him ... 10.00 7.00
The first number is some kind of index or serial number. The second number is the cassette cost and the third is the reel cost. You can see the column headings by searching for the number 900.
Searching for "Watts" in the same book via Google Books shows the title of page 11, "New Alan Watts Lectures".
Searching for the year numbers, the matches on that page seem to be for some text about the indexing of works in MMRI-1970, 1971 and 1972, rather than a publication year.
Watts, Alan. Myth and Religion : the Edited Transcripts. First edition. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1996.
It contains "Jesus - His Religion, Or the Religion About Him", which appears to be a very slightly different title from the work that you are searching for.
The text includes the transcripts, but doesn't include the original date(s) of delivery / publication. And it's published a quarter century after the initial records of the lecture.
As noted, I'd emailed the Alan Watts institute but have received no reply.
> Dan Clancy, the Google engineering lead on the project who helped design the settlement, thinks that it was a particular brand of objector—not Google’s competitors but “sympathetic entities” you’d think would be in favor of it, like library enthusiasts, academic authors, and so on—that ultimately flipped the DOJ.
I was at Google in 2009 on a team adjacent to Dan Clancy when he was most excited about the Authors’ Guild negotiations to publish orphan works and create a portal to pay copyright holders who signed up, and I recall that one opponent that he was frustrated at was Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive, who filed a jealous amicus brief (https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yo...) complaining that the Authors’ Guild settlement would not grant him access to publishing orphan works too. In my opinion Kahle was wrong; the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing which is what actually happened in the 15 year since then. Instead of one company selling out-of-print but in-copyright books, or multiple organizations, no one is allowed to sell them today.
Since then, of course, Brewster Kahle launched an e-library of copyrighted books without legal authorization anyway which will probably be the death of the current organization that runs the Internet Archive. Tragic all around.
I wish the contradiction you spotted was clear on their Wikipedia page. It demonstrates how far back IA's management troubles go, and how their clean image was maybe just an image.
For me, I became concerned when they fibbed about why the Internet Archive Credit Union was liquidated. IA alleged it was shut down due to onerous regulations, but the government said IA actually never lived up to their goal of allowing local, low-income folk to sign-up for their service. https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2016/internet-archiv...
The situation with IA is one thing, but the general negative attitude of libraries and archives to public access is something I've observed too, and it's depressing.
For instance, they can spend a lot of effort digitizing an archive they got from a business active from 1890 to 1970 - and then put it all in a single collection, which the public won't get access to until 2070. There's no reason to think the business handled sensitive personal information, but it's too much work to check, so they assume it did. They could classify individual documents according to whether they were actually from before 1920, but that's too much work too.
That’s the case with so much of this sort of thing. You also see it in cases like open sourcing proprietary software. You need to pay someone competent to do a thorough audit or you end up with headlines about so and so releasing PII or otherwise confidential information.
I think it could be a great charity btw. Get donations from public, talk companies into releasing their old software, hire auditors for them and maybe developers to get the result running without all the proprietary third-party components.
Personally I’d rather see maintainers getting better compensated for creating new and widely useful software in cases where they don’t have a corporate sponsor. Most abandoned proprietary software is just old.
I’d love that too, of course. But some old things are great for their historical value – personally, I would be thrilled to see Winamp released properly, for example.
This is an insightful comment and I thank you for sharing it but, after having looked at the brief you linked
> a jealous amicus brief that the Authors’ Guild settlement would not grant him access to publishing orphan works too
that's not a fair overview of the amicus brief, there are good points there about the process of notifying orphan works rights holders and about the risk of a monopolistic position. I do agree with you on this part though
> the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing
Edit: I also agree with you that the way the IA subsequently created its e-library was not ideal.
> that's not a fair overview of the amicus brief, there are good points there about the process of notifying orphan works rights holders and about the risk of a monopolistic position
What I meant by “jealous” is that the Internet Archive’s interest was not to improve author notification or to protect foreign authors; it was to provide a competing service under similar or better terms than Google was able to negotiate without spending the time and money that Google did litigating. Kahle wanted what was in Google’s settlement.
And what I meant by “Kahle was wrong” is not that every argument that his lawyers thought up was false; I think the agreement was later amended to fix some issues. My point is that Kahle’s theory of change was wrong. He thought that when the settlement was rejected, then Google would push Congress to create an orphan works law which the Internet Archive could use to publish old books too. As he wrote in his op-ed, “We need to focus on legislation to address works that are caught in copyright limbo. … We are very close to having universal access to all knowledge. Let's not stumble now.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0... As it turns out, the rejection of the class action settlement did not cause Congress to create an orphan works law. In retrospect, we would have been more likely to get an orphan works law if Google had been allowed to set up a proof of the concept, making the monopoly on orphan works temporary.
There's such a weird tone to your posts. It's as if they're meant to give the impression that Kahle had a substantial, if not singlehanded, influence over the outcome. In reality, his input probably didn't have even the impact that Kahle himself hoped for and the appropriate adjective to describe the effect is probably "negligible", if at all. It was a class action lawsuit with extremely dubious underpinnings where over 6,000 people wrote in to ask that they not be considered part of the class.
I think the biggest hurdle was lawyers from the big publishing houses, the only view I heard was "This deal will make Google to powerful", the deal would have had far reaching international effects. In the end we know that Creative Commons was wrong you can not fix copyright by playing along.
Maybe permanently, as societal stances on these sorts of issues tend to solidify over time. In a couple of generations the very idea of a library may be confined to history thanks to IA :(
That is far-fetched, science fabulist style thinking. The average person on the street does not know about Brewster or the IA, but they certainly do know about their local library and would object if it was to disappear.
How would a settlement with the Authors' Guild cover orphan works? If the Authors' Guild is in a position to grant a license, then it's not an orphan work. The whole orphan works problem is that for a lot of valueless works, nobody knows who owns what.
Fortunately (by some definition of fortunately), most countries don’t agree on exactly how the web should be “locked down.” This benefits at least some people (like me) who live in countries who make also no effort to restrict what can be shoved down the internet tube, including from countries that don’t particularly care about western copyright law. Would it be nice to have a fully sanctioned pandemic library-style service? Absolutely. But I have never once looked for a textbook, paper, regular book, etc online and not found a copy for free. Usually takes the same amount of time or less compared to finding a copy on Amazon (if it’s currently in print), and almost always less time using my library’s clunky online ebook platform[1].
Is that legal? Technically yes, in my country. Is it ethical? Debatable, depending on who you’re asking. But for me personally, I have found it to be getting substantially easier to find high quality copies of copyrighted anything in the past 3-5 years compared to 10-15 years ago, so I don’t necessarily agree with the blanket statement that “the net is only getting more locked down.”
[1] I like to use the library as much as possible, if for nothing else than to increase usage numbers to marginally positively decrease the likelihood of finding cuts.
> Would it be nice to have a fully sanctioned pandemic library-style service? Absolutely.
This is basically LibGen / Anna’s Archive. A bit clunky around the download process (maybe things get better if you get a paid subscription though!), but overall it works pretty well.
>This is basically LibGen / Anna’s Archive. A bit clunky around the download process
Not at all. You visit libgen, search for your book, find it (usually available) click one of the two available links for it, click to download, have it download. Done.
Thanks for making me aware of this. This guy's heart is clearly (to me) in the right place, but his understanding of power is seriously lacking. That's probably what gave him the hubris to create Wayback and IA, but he'll be absolutely dumbstruck when they shut it down.
He won't be surprised at all. His slogan is "governments burn libraries". He's been able to forestall that for a while, and even provide public access, but permanence of the IA as an institution was never in the cards, given its subversive goal: universal access to all human knowledge.
Guess where the first backup copy of the Internet Archive is located.
Libraries are funded by the government. They've been diligently scanning books for decades but nobody has had even the slightest interest in that until their favourite hackerman showed up. Libertarian god complex is so tiresome.
Some libraries are government-funded. Many are not.
That ranges from the personal book collection numbering from one to many thousands in private hands, private institutional libraries (the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco is one that comes to mind, many private universities and grammar schools have their own, as do numerous corporations, some of which are catalogued by Worldcat).
Preservation of Western culture, notably the Greek and Roman canons, as well as much literature and knowledge of the Jewish, Byzantine, and Islamic worlds, occurred through religious institutions. Though in some regards those were the governments of the time. Indian, Chinese, and other further East Asian collections were preserved through multiple means.
Book digitisation at US academic institutions (the University of Michigan being a major contributor to both Google Books and HathiTrust) has had its own exctremely combative relationship with commercial publishers, as has the US Library of Congress, which issues US copyright in the first place.
I imagine there would be enough institutional support for the Way Back Machine from the likes of Wikipedia at least that even if the IA did go down the WBM would be carved off and kept alive. Effectively I think the IA will be broken up.
> In my opinion Kahle was wrong; the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing
Maybe. I think that is a pretty optimistic view of congress and our political process. I would argue that having a powerful, rich company with a monopoly to lose would have made passing such a law less likely, not more.
I do think we would have been better off with a Google monopoly on unpublished unclaimed books than with the lack of access we have today.
The article says:
> You’d get in a lot of trouble, they said, but all you’d have to do, more or less, is write a single database query. You’d flip some access control bits from off to on. It might take a few minutes for the command to propagate.
If it's so easy, I'm suprised nobody has done it and accepted the consequences. It seems one of the largest single positive impacts any person could make on the world. Once it's released, it'll never go back in the box. A modern Pandora.
In practice that is an obvious exaggeration for the purposes of making a point. It is probably simple enough to make the change, and it’s equally easy to change it back. One configuration makes you subject to massive lawsuits and the other doesn’t.
I worked at the Library of Congress on their Digital Preservation Project, circa 2001-2003. The stated goal was to "digitize all of the Library's collections" and while most people think of books, I was in the Motion Picture Broadcast and Recorded Sound Division.
In our collection were Thomas Edison's first motion pictures, wire spool recordings from reporters at D-Day, and LPs of some of the greatest musicians of all time. And that was just our Division. Others - like American Heritage - had photos from the US Civil War and more.
Anyway, while the Rights information is one big, ugly tangled web, the other side is the hardware to read the formats. Much of the media is fragile and/or dangerous to use so you have to be exceptionally careful. Then you have to document all the settings you used because imagine that three months from now, you learn some filter you used was wrong or the hardware was misconfigured.. you need to go back and understand what was affected how.
Also.. it was fun learning the answer to "what is the work?"
If you have an LP or wire spool recording, the audio is the key, obvious work. But then you have the album cover, the spool case, and the physical condition of the media. Being able to see an album cover or read a reporter's notes/labeling is almost as important as the audio.
Is the Library of Congress really beholden to copyright laws? I guess I assumed as the national deposit library they had a special exemption to copy any damn thing they pleased for archival purposes.
If they don't have that prerogative, they probably should, and Congress should legislate that to be the case.
The Library of Congress and its staff determine fair use exceptions in certain contexts so I’m not sure who could find fault with them, as they could simply authorize it before or after the fact, from what I understand.
“Page had always wanted to digitize books. Way back in 1996, the student project that eventually became Google—a “crawler” that would ingest documents and rank them for relevance against a user’s query—was actually conceived as part of an effort “to develop the enabling technologies for a single, integrated and universal digital library.” The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons. But books still lived mostly on paper. Page and his research partner, Sergey Brin, developed their popularity-contest-by-citation idea using pages from the World Wide Web.“
Larry Page had some cool ideas… can’t imagine Books will ever be resurrected, unfortunately.
He really wanted to digitize all of them to provide reference and training data for early language models (well before LLMs, transformers, etc).
He also had a plan (with George Church) to build enormous warehouses holding large-scale biology research infrastructure right next to google data centers. Because most biology research is done at locations that have reached their limit on computational/storage capacity.
Larry had many good ideas but he struggled to get the majority of them off the ground. For example, when Trump was president and invited all the major tech leaders, Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
>Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
I feel like some crucial detail is missing here. They already use HVDC for long-distance transmission lines, inside and outside of the US. Texas could benefit from it I suppose, but the US in general already uses it where appropriate AFAIK.
> Larry had many good ideas but he struggled to get the majority of them off the ground. For example, when Trump was president and invited all the major tech leaders, Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
I fail to see how that would be a good idea.
To me, it looks like some magnate in a completely unrelated industry, who is megalomaniac enough to believe that they can enter a completely unrelated industry and explain to experts how things ought to get done.
His father was a computer scientist and his brother Carl is an electrical engineer; Carl has done extensive research in the area (and runs at least one company working on related problems) and Larry is highly educated about this stuff. He's not a megalomaniac- just completely unrealistic in how he pursues his goals.
He didn't originate the idea, it's well known that DC is more efficient but has other serious hurdles. It often takes innovative and influential people to break the status quo. E.g. Elon and EVs.
> it's well known that DC is more efficient but has other serious hurdles.
If it's well known but no one has done it, maybe there are reasons for it? Building long-distance lines is a very capital-intensive decision, and if the cost-benefit analysis was better, projects would be done. Looking by DOE's communication [1], we can see that the cost-benefit analysis doesn't look good now for a big network, but also that HVDC projects that actually make economic sense have been built for decades.
Sure, sometimes innovative people make a big change, but what's the innovation there?
There absolutely are HVDC transmission lines under the sea. And capital intensive, revolutionary projects are ripe for disruption from people who have already pulled off similar feats, hence why it would make sense for a Google founder to take interest.
> There absolutely are HVDC transmission lines under the sea.
Not sure where you see me claiming the opposite?
> And capital intensive, revolutionary projects are ripe for disruption from people who have already pulled off similar feats
If Larry Page is looking to waste a few billions in cables, he's absolutely welcome to do it. One HVDC connection between France and the UK is private, for instance [1]. If he believes there's money to be made similarly in the US, he should go for it.
That's not exactly the same offer as "Larry page has suggested the government should invest in expensive infrastructure for an industry he's never worked in".
> The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons.
You can do something similar to this already, by mapping which books are cited in Wikipedia articles. If you know how to do such a thing, because I don't.
> Wikipedia is an essential component of the open science ecosystem, yet it is poorly integrated with academic open science initiatives. Wikipedia Citations is a project that focuses on extracting and releasing comprehensive datasets of citations from Wikipedia. A total of 29.3 million citations were extracted from English Wikipedia in May 2020. Following this one-off research project, we designed a reproducible pipeline that can process any given Wikipedia dump in the cloud-based settings. To demonstrate its usability, we extracted 40.6 million citations in February 2023 and 44.7 million citations in February 2024. Furthermore, we equipped the pipeline with an adapted Wikipedia citation template translation module to process multilingual Wikipedia articles in 15 European languages so that they are parsed and mapped into a generic structured citation template. This paper presents our open-source software pipeline to retrieve, classify, and disambiguate citations on demand from a given Wikipedia dump.
Prior work referenced in above abstract with some team overlap:
Wikipedia citations: A comprehensive data set of citations with identifiers extracted from English Wikipedia [2021]
Whose dream? It's specifically here on HN that I find the largest number of comments bitching about the uselessness of the internet and how they replaced their own search efforts with just asking a hallucinating LLM, as if they had no choice in the matter. Great way to help make things better friends....
If anything the internet today is more loaded than ever with cool information and useful stuff, especially as ever larger bodies of formerly analog content get digitized and often with full open access. If one can get over their myopic naval gazing and cultivation of fetishism about everything having gone to shit, it's not even hard to find most of that useful information.
The internet -like any complex thing with multiple interests involved in its existence and operation- is just whatever works best for different people in different contexts, commercially, personally, technically and so forth. It's neither an ideal that one should obsess over or something to be neatly pigeonholed into a box of how it "should be". Adapt, use its tools to make whatever parts of it you can fit whatever your personal ideal is, instead of endlessly blaming advertisers or people just trying to make a living from one more commercial landscape.
Yeah, each year we inch closer to an internet where the only things to do revolve around buying things; watch “content” which mostly revolves around creators shilling products, research products, or buy products. Every hobby has to be monetized now, everything has to be a side hustle, every impression monetized. Few seem to bother anymore with personal blogs that exist for their own enjoyment and sharing of knowledge, and yet with all this paid creation, full-time artists struggle more than ever, largely unable to afford living costs in the very cities they helped to build the culture and value of.
I find it personally difficult to look at the entirety of the internet in 2024 and say that it’s definitely better for society than it was in 2004. I guess now at least we can mostly book appointments on our phones without having to speak with someone in real-time as they read dates and times off of a calendar interface that we can now just use ourselves directly.
There's nothing wrong with people trying to make money on the internet. You can sit in your bubble of personal dislikes and preferences, whining about average people using a very accessible tool to try to make a living for themselves, just like you presumably do in some way or another, but why not instead see the bigger picture of an internet in which not all things are shit and not all commercialization is automatically bad.
Personal blogs, creative efforts and wonderful resources still abound on the internet and can still usually be found quite easily if you put a bit of effort into looking.
It's somewhat ironic that, while the individual books are still accessible, their index pages https://www.oreilly.com/free and https://www.oreilly.com/openbook both redirect to some AI propaganda these days, with no links to the books left.
This seems to be the fate of knowledge/content that stays in institutions which have been built with the idea of collecting it and growing it.. but have turned into walled gardens/crypts of sort. Rot/Rust and be forgotten.
A very cynical and dark view is that the New things/people need that oblivion in order to feel great, for not haveing to compare with old great-er ones. Rewriting history as it seems fit the current powers-that-be, is easier this way.
Or may be it's just collective stupidity? or societal immaturity ?
(i am coming from completely different killed project on a different continent, but the idea is the same)
I seriously doubt there's very much highly relevant old knowledge locked away somewhere. Is there interesting stuff we don't have good access to? Sure, but mainly of interest to historians (pro or amateur). You're not likely to find the cure for cancer written down in some 1000-year-old book somewhere. And while a few people might really be interested in reading decades or centuries-old novels that weren't popular enough to be called "classics" now, the vast majority of people aren't going to find such stories about people in the distant past all that interesting.
Of course, it's best to preserve past knowledge, but I think the idea that this is part of some kind of conspiracy to keep people buying new stuff is pretty silly. People are always going to want new stuff, as society grows and changes.
> find the cure for cancer written down in some 1000-year-old book somewhere.
While you're most likely right about the cure for cancer, I did want to note that this is kind of how the cure for malaria was found (artemisinin). Tu Youyou who won the nobel prize systematically investigated Traditional Chinese Medecine remedies until she came across one that was effective. That particular remedy was described in a 1600 years old text The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments, written in 340 by Ge Hong.
Note: before anyone think that the fact that a remedy described in traditional Chinese texts mean that TCM is reliable and a viable alternative in all text, she screened over 2,000 traditional Chinese recipes and made 380 herbal extracts, from some 200 herbs which were tested on mice. So, yes one of the remedy were successful but the success rate of TCM was not particularly high :)
This is really interesting actually, but I do want to point out that I'm not saying all old knowledge is only of interest to historians: I was arguing against the idea that some old knowledge is "locked away" and not publicly available as part of some kind of conspiracy.
Lots of old knowledge is readily available to the public. The complete works of Shakespeare are a good example here, as is Homer's epics The Odyssey and The Iliad. (I don't know if that TCM stuff is or not.) These kinds of things are considered "classics" and are frequently reproduced, now available online in countless places, etc. Obviously, lots of people besides historians think they're important, and so they're copied frequently and made available at large. As the famous rule goes, "99% of everything is crap", so probably all the best stuff from the past is well-preserved, and the rest, not so much. I seriously doubt that something as good as Shakespeare is locked away in someone's private library and virtually unknown to almost anyone.
Of course, there's always exceptions and you never know when some overlooked tidbit of info from the distant past might be really useful, as you showed here, so I do think it's important to preserve and enable easy access to as many old works as possible.
> I seriously doubt there's very much highly relevant old knowledge locked away somewhere.
Interesting take on what "knowledge" means and what makes knowledge valuable.
If I understand "knowledge" as "information directly relevant to a technical problem", then:
- the knowledge which remains relevant to that problem will stay available to practitioners (i.e. the properties of a Gaussian distribution, from Gauss, 1809)
- the knowledge which is no longer relevant to that problem will probably be lost (how to compute the integral of a Gaussian using a slide rule. Slide rules first developed circa 1620, last used circa 1970)
In other words, yes, your point is profoundly true. Knowledge relevant to a specific task stays available, not relevant gets pruned quickly.
My question would be if we want to use that definition of relevant and that understanding of what drives value. i.e. I'm not asking if you are correct, I've just shown that you are correct. My question is if the assumptions/values which make this correct are assumptions/values we are comfortable with. In other words, is is wise?
It's not just technical knowledge either: look at Shakespeare's works. They're centuries old, but there's absolutely no danger of those disappearing. Lots of old stuff is well-preserved and highly duplicated for easy access.
The books project was very early in Google's history. Possibly before their IPO. Since then, they've shed their don't be evil motto and shitcanned the 20% time affordance for new projects.
I think it's neatly summarized in two words: shareholder growth.
I think you are on to something, people frequently don’t want to grapple with and understand what has been done before, they prefer to just wing it and move forward on their own.
I am fairly certain there is more knowledge/content available to anyone in this century than last century or any century before it. But perhaps I have misread your comment.
With library genesis, who needs Google Books anymore? I buy books physically to support the author/s and download an epub version from said site to my kindle. The physical books I hardly read, they are for my shelf. Although I love the feeling of printed books, but I read in bed, and it‘s easier to hold an ebook. Also I read when I commute. It’s lighter to have my Kindle Oasis with me with tons of books on it.
Someone needs to scan the book and upload it to library genesis. The article said Google had developed this massively efficient apparatus for scanning (or taking photographs of) books, and most of the article was about out-of-print books.
I personally have actually tried to contribute to libgen a particular difficult-to-find-online book by buying it, scanning it, and uploading it. There need to be more people doing this.
There’s the everything available online for free mindset. But, yes, I’ve basically donated all my books that were in the public domain. And, in general, have been massively purging my book collection of stuff I won’t realistically read again.
IMO if a work is out of print (or equivalent depending on the medium) for more than a few years, it should be released into the public domain. Or maybe something like the public domain, but requires attribution.
Even that doesn't always work --- I was rebuffed by Joan Turville-Petre's son when I asked for a license to reprint his mother's notes on J.R.R. Tolkien's translation of _The Old English Exodus_ on the grounds that he would prefer to work with an academic, rather than an individual.
Anyone know an academic specializing in Old English who would like to oversee this reprinting? I have a typeset PDF which only wants proofreading and updating of the index.
Then every book will be immediately out of print after its initial run, while the not-quite-a-cartel of publishers all decline to print it until it hits the point where they no longer have to pay the author.
Then the publisher loses out on exclusive publishing rights and also loses money. It's in their interests to keep it in print so long as it's a profitable book, even if they have to pay some percentage to the author. Once it goes into public domain every publisher can reprint it and the original publisher has to compete with them on price.
Part of the problem here is a change in tax law a couple of decades back where the backlist as a bunch of printed books in a warehouse became a tax liability when Congress tried to close a tax loophole which non-publishers were exploiting.
Rather than the old model of printing a reasonable print run, selling books as demand allowed, and keeping unsold books in warehouses only paying tax as they were sold, the new laws required paying tax on inventory each year --- so any books not sold in the first year were not as profitable, hence book remaindering, and the current mess.
I'm not arguing for it (or against it for that matter), I was just pointing out that the analysis in the comment I responded to didn't make sense. Every book won't be allowed to fall out of print and copyright just to exploit the authors because it would also hurt the publishers, they also benefit from exclusive publishing rights. Publishing rights are granted by the copyright holder (the author) to the publisher, much like patent licenses.
Regarding unprofitable books, they'll fall out of print anyways because they're unprofitable. Those authors won't be getting ripped off because they won't be making money either way beyond initial commissions and what few sales they get.
> Much better for it to revert to the author in that situation IMO.
The publisher doesn't hold the copyright, the author does, so copyright (the particular right under discussion) can't revert to the author as it never left the author. What the publisher holds is publishing rights per a contract with the author. That could revert back to the author (or be voided or however it's structured), and that would be reasonable but we don't need any laws for it, that would fall under normal contract terms. Whether it's a common thing now or feasible for a particular author (with no clout? maybe not, with billions in sales from prior books? probably) is another matter.
As someone who has both independently published and gone through a technical publisher, there’s still a stamp of approval, fully deserved or not, associated with your book being published by a known name.
A huge proportion of this corpus is found in the Hathi Trust (see https://www.hathitrust.org/the-collection/). We have had a grant to crawl and derive an index on it via their supercomputing resources. I'm sure they are looking to LLM proposals, though they are exceedingly careful about the copyright issues.
Programmers not law makers really control what goes and doesnt online.
Bittorent and ipfs etc are nice but things would be better if there was a large static archive with desktop clients exchanging chunks in a complex modular way.
Say: I have pages 1-15 of file 123456, you have page 16 but are looking for page 1 of doc 2345, if i can obtain that page a fast exchange is possible. If not a different module can issue an iou that either means i owe something, you are owed something or both. Other modules could create groups that aim to store part of the archive without duplication amoung members. Spam driven modules could also be interesting.
The archive can be organized by how dubious the copyright is so that one can limit participation to 50 or 100+ year old publications and/or living or dead authors.
Its not unlike living on a far away island with the british empire seeking to control every aspect of your life without sufficient means of force.
Just my opinion but as a starting point for the argument...
* 20 years from date of first publish (renewable up to CAP? 50 years)
* Must remain available every year
* 10 year renewal blocks with massive registration fee increases
* Compulsory maximum license fee cap (can offer for less) in the laws
Note this is not TRADE MARK; trade marks are _consumer protection_ related to 'brand ownership'.
Even 50 is a lot, because it starts at the death of the author. Popular culture shouldn't remain locked out for generations. 50 maximum would be ideal, two generations from the one who experienced it in the original cultural context.
And that's still a lot, since fifty years from publication is the minimum to abide to TRIPS, but we're used to much worse, so it doesn't sound as bad now. It could be shorter, things move a lot faster nowadays, a single generation of monopoly means more today than a hundred years ago.
And reign in the damages for infringement to some amount closer to what was actually lost. For instance, if someone has a million books on a drive they haven't deprived the publisher of a million sales for chrissakes
That's not the whole point of the training. It's just (very loosely) a measure of loss used during pre-training. There are many post-training and alignment stages in a typical model that are designed to reward high-quality responses.
Technically, yes, it's impossible to guarantee that it won't just regurgitate source material (which is mostly around the tails of the data distribution), but the whole point of training is to build generalized intelligence.
I guess I used the wrong wording but it doesn't change the argument. Yes, the whole point of training is to build generalized intelligence (or at least that's what we __hope__ for). But as far as I understand, we do it __mainly__ by training for the next word in the sequence.
PS: you speak of "pre-training" and "post-training", so I'm curious what you think is the main part of the training (?)
> Copyright terms have been radically extended in this country largely to keep pace with Europe, where the standard has long been that copyrights last for the life of the author plus 50 years. But the European
idea, “It’s based on natural law as opposed to positive law,” Lateef Mtima, a copyright scholar at Howard University Law School, said. “Their whole thought process is coming out of France and Hugo and those guys
that like, you know, ‘My work is my enfant,’” he said, “and the state has absolutely no right to do anything with it—kind of a Lockean point of view.” As the world has flattened, copyright laws have converged,
lest one country be at a disadvantage by freeing its intellectual products for exploitation by the others. And so the American idea of using copyright primarily as a vehicle, per the constitution, “to promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not to protect authors, has eroded to the point where today we’ve locked up nearly every book published after 1923.
This is disingenuous: the article doesn’t mention that the biggest proponent of the prolonging of the copyright terms were Americans (e.g., Walt Disney Corp and Jack Valenti, see “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” for more) not Europeans.
For Kagi users, I recommend putting books.google.com as a pinned domain. This way, you'll many times be presented with some of the best sources for any search query. Then it's a matter of finding the ePub file of that book. To read on MacOS, FBReader is a high quality app.
Good. It’s important that free access not be permitted. We don’t know what personal data might be contained within. We should only allow those works after a human (appropriately certified) has verified that no personal data exists within.
If it exists within the book must be destroyed in its entirety. Too many works of so-called scholarship have relied on the personal letters of dead people.
We should not reward grave robbing. The most important thing is the personal data. We must protect the personal data.
Written from a capitalist perspective, extolling "market forces" and legitimizing corporate and government limitations on copying.
"between 1923 and 1963 ... copyrights back then had to be renewed, and often the rightsholder wouldn’t bother filing the paperwork" - oh no, how terrible. How lucky we are that in these modern times one doesn't even have to file paperwork in order to prevent you from copying information.
and they go on to suck to Google and decry how they didn't get to legitimize their control over a large swath of human knowledge and cultural heritage.
"It certainly seems unlikely that someone is going to spend political capital—especially today—trying to change the licensing regime for books, let alone old ones." <- copyright regime, licensing regime - all of this stuff is illegitimate apriori. Poetry, literature, music, software, papers and books - we cannot and must not tolerate restrictions on their dissemination.
What arrangements the commercial and governmental entities come to, our "arrangement" should be that everything gets disseminated widely and without restriction, so that curtailment, censorship, commercial control etc. just fail.
> what happened with piano rolls, with records, with radio, and with cable—isn’t that copyright holders squash the new technology. Instead, they cut a deal and start making money from it.
> “History has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests,” Wu writes.
It is completely braindead to argue that market forces had anything to do with compulsory licensing. It is a matter determined by courts in the public interest.
The tragedy is that Google is tasked with this at all. It would be cool if public libraries could work together on a massive public digital library. This shouldn't be Google's responsibility.
arguably Google was invented to fund this project.
The books project predates the search engine and the search engine grew out of the project of creating a universal digital library. The PageRank algorithm is one of a class of algorithms used to score citations in books and papers.
Otherwise, we have Project Gutenberg (public domain), OpenLibrary (Internet Archive, both PD and copyrighted works), ZLibrary, Library Genesis, and Anna's Archive.
All humans everywhere have a responsibility to preserve culture and knowledge to the best of their ability. I think what you meant to say is that none of us can trust Google with this important task.
One of the great tragedies of civilization is that we leave things in the hands of those who do them rather than in the hands of those who tell us about our responsibility to do them.
Another reason that they should never have been allowed to ingest all the books in the first place. Without paying for the rights to use the digital form of the book, a use which is explicitly prohibited by the publisher, they digitized the books anyway. If they used it to train an LLM, and the LLM regurgitates near facsimiles of all the copyrighted works without compensation to the original rights holders, that seems like something that should be illegal.
These Google scans are also available in the HathiTrust [1], an organization built from the big academic libraries that participated in early book digitization efforts. The HathiTrust is better about letting the public read books that have actually fallen into the public domain. I have found many books that are "snippet view" only on Google Books but freely visible on HathiTrust.
If you are a student or researcher at one of the participating HathiTrust institutions, you can also get access to scans of books that are still in copyright.
The one advantage Google Books still has is that its search tools are much faster and sometimes better, so it can be useful to search for phrases or topics on Google Books and then jump over to HathiTrust to read specific books surfaced by the search.
[1] https://www.hathitrust.org/
Hathitrust has been absolutely transformative for me, as an amateur nuclear enterprise historian.
“…nuclear enterprise…”
As in, the business of running a nuclear energy plant?
Yes. Electricity, propulsion, desalination, space heating, etc.
HathiTrust is a fine example of a repository which is in theory useful but in practice all but useless.
Participation is limited to tertiary academic institutions, and possibly only four-year (rather than two-year) ones. This excludes local (city/county) libraries, as well as primary/secondary (grammar / middle / high school in the US) libraries.
Even public-domain records cannot be downloaded in whole, but rather can be saved one page at a time as PDFs. I'm pretty sure that those interested in more useful archival will and/or have created automated tools to do so, but HathiTrust remains the most notable point-of-access for such works, and the additional generation of conversion and republication further degrades the quality of original-publication formats. (It's less a problem for regenerated works from OCR'd or manually-converted documents, but those of course lose all the characteristics of original publication.)
And of course, many materials still under copyright are not accessible to the general public at all, no matter how obscure. I'd run into a case of this some months back trying to get a date attribution of an Alan Watts lecture which had been posted to HN:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41231047> (thread).
And my request still stands. Anyone with an academic affiliation who can check <https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000678503> and see how it relates to this post (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230841>) would have my gratitude.
Even with institutional login, HathiTrust does not show the full text online for this journal. It only permits searching and then showing the page numbers of the matches, which can be done without logging in.
But I think this journal does not contain the date.
Searching for "his religion" (with quotation marks) in volume 6 via HathiTrust shows a single match on page 11. Searching for the same text via the Google Books link from your other post shows the following entry among a list of what I assume are lectures:
> 919 Jesus: His Religion, Or The Religion About Him ... 10.00 7.00
The first number is some kind of index or serial number. The second number is the cassette cost and the third is the reel cost. You can see the column headings by searching for the number 900.
Searching for "Watts" in the same book via Google Books shows the title of page 11, "New Alan Watts Lectures".
Searching for the year numbers, the matches on that page seem to be for some text about the indexing of works in MMRI-1970, 1971 and 1972, rather than a publication year.
Thanks for checking.
And for confirming that HT is even more useless than I'd thought.
Again: Fuck copyright.
I just put in a request at my university library for that item. I'll let you know what it turns up.
Thank you so much!
You might want to look for:
Watts, Alan. Myth and Religion : the Edited Transcripts. First edition. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1996.
It contains "Jesus - His Religion, Or the Religion About Him", which appears to be a very slightly different title from the work that you are searching for.
I'd found that text at the time as noted here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41235652>.
The text includes the transcripts, but doesn't include the original date(s) of delivery / publication. And it's published a quarter century after the initial records of the lecture.
As noted, I'd emailed the Alan Watts institute but have received no reply.
> Dan Clancy, the Google engineering lead on the project who helped design the settlement, thinks that it was a particular brand of objector—not Google’s competitors but “sympathetic entities” you’d think would be in favor of it, like library enthusiasts, academic authors, and so on—that ultimately flipped the DOJ.
I was at Google in 2009 on a team adjacent to Dan Clancy when he was most excited about the Authors’ Guild negotiations to publish orphan works and create a portal to pay copyright holders who signed up, and I recall that one opponent that he was frustrated at was Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive, who filed a jealous amicus brief (https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yo...) complaining that the Authors’ Guild settlement would not grant him access to publishing orphan works too. In my opinion Kahle was wrong; the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing which is what actually happened in the 15 year since then. Instead of one company selling out-of-print but in-copyright books, or multiple organizations, no one is allowed to sell them today.
Since then, of course, Brewster Kahle launched an e-library of copyrighted books without legal authorization anyway which will probably be the death of the current organization that runs the Internet Archive. Tragic all around.
I wish the contradiction you spotted was clear on their Wikipedia page. It demonstrates how far back IA's management troubles go, and how their clean image was maybe just an image.
For me, I became concerned when they fibbed about why the Internet Archive Credit Union was liquidated. IA alleged it was shut down due to onerous regulations, but the government said IA actually never lived up to their goal of allowing local, low-income folk to sign-up for their service. https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2016/internet-archiv...
The situation with IA is one thing, but the general negative attitude of libraries and archives to public access is something I've observed too, and it's depressing.
For instance, they can spend a lot of effort digitizing an archive they got from a business active from 1890 to 1970 - and then put it all in a single collection, which the public won't get access to until 2070. There's no reason to think the business handled sensitive personal information, but it's too much work to check, so they assume it did. They could classify individual documents according to whether they were actually from before 1920, but that's too much work too.
That’s the case with so much of this sort of thing. You also see it in cases like open sourcing proprietary software. You need to pay someone competent to do a thorough audit or you end up with headlines about so and so releasing PII or otherwise confidential information.
I think it could be a great charity btw. Get donations from public, talk companies into releasing their old software, hire auditors for them and maybe developers to get the result running without all the proprietary third-party components.
Personally I’d rather see maintainers getting better compensated for creating new and widely useful software in cases where they don’t have a corporate sponsor. Most abandoned proprietary software is just old.
I’d love that too, of course. But some old things are great for their historical value – personally, I would be thrilled to see Winamp released properly, for example.
This is an insightful comment and I thank you for sharing it but, after having looked at the brief you linked
> a jealous amicus brief that the Authors’ Guild settlement would not grant him access to publishing orphan works too
that's not a fair overview of the amicus brief, there are good points there about the process of notifying orphan works rights holders and about the risk of a monopolistic position. I do agree with you on this part though
> the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing
Edit: I also agree with you that the way the IA subsequently created its e-library was not ideal.
> that's not a fair overview of the amicus brief, there are good points there about the process of notifying orphan works rights holders and about the risk of a monopolistic position
What I meant by “jealous” is that the Internet Archive’s interest was not to improve author notification or to protect foreign authors; it was to provide a competing service under similar or better terms than Google was able to negotiate without spending the time and money that Google did litigating. Kahle wanted what was in Google’s settlement.
And what I meant by “Kahle was wrong” is not that every argument that his lawyers thought up was false; I think the agreement was later amended to fix some issues. My point is that Kahle’s theory of change was wrong. He thought that when the settlement was rejected, then Google would push Congress to create an orphan works law which the Internet Archive could use to publish old books too. As he wrote in his op-ed, “We need to focus on legislation to address works that are caught in copyright limbo. … We are very close to having universal access to all knowledge. Let's not stumble now.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0... As it turns out, the rejection of the class action settlement did not cause Congress to create an orphan works law. In retrospect, we would have been more likely to get an orphan works law if Google had been allowed to set up a proof of the concept, making the monopoly on orphan works temporary.
There's such a weird tone to your posts. It's as if they're meant to give the impression that Kahle had a substantial, if not singlehanded, influence over the outcome. In reality, his input probably didn't have even the impact that Kahle himself hoped for and the appropriate adjective to describe the effect is probably "negligible", if at all. It was a class action lawsuit with extremely dubious underpinnings where over 6,000 people wrote in to ask that they not be considered part of the class.
I think the biggest hurdle was lawyers from the big publishing houses, the only view I heard was "This deal will make Google to powerful", the deal would have had far reaching international effects. In the end we know that Creative Commons was wrong you can not fix copyright by playing along.
I would say it’s much worse then “not ideal”, they may have poisoned the well for decades to come.
Maybe permanently, as societal stances on these sorts of issues tend to solidify over time. In a couple of generations the very idea of a library may be confined to history thanks to IA :(
That is far-fetched, science fabulist style thinking. The average person on the street does not know about Brewster or the IA, but they certainly do know about their local library and would object if it was to disappear.
I expect the average person has never visited a library since school
In fact, in the US, around half the population goes to a library at least once a year
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/09/libraries-20... https://www.ala.org/news/2019/12/new-ala-report-gen-z-millen...
why are you blaming IA for the aggressive and tight fisted behavior of publishers?
How would a settlement with the Authors' Guild cover orphan works? If the Authors' Guild is in a position to grant a license, then it's not an orphan work. The whole orphan works problem is that for a lot of valueless works, nobody knows who owns what.
That pandemic library was a huge, obvious over step by him.
It will have consequences far beyond the immediate lawsuit too.
The very concept has basically been iced for a generation and the net is only getting more locked down not less.
Fortunately (by some definition of fortunately), most countries don’t agree on exactly how the web should be “locked down.” This benefits at least some people (like me) who live in countries who make also no effort to restrict what can be shoved down the internet tube, including from countries that don’t particularly care about western copyright law. Would it be nice to have a fully sanctioned pandemic library-style service? Absolutely. But I have never once looked for a textbook, paper, regular book, etc online and not found a copy for free. Usually takes the same amount of time or less compared to finding a copy on Amazon (if it’s currently in print), and almost always less time using my library’s clunky online ebook platform[1].
Is that legal? Technically yes, in my country. Is it ethical? Debatable, depending on who you’re asking. But for me personally, I have found it to be getting substantially easier to find high quality copies of copyrighted anything in the past 3-5 years compared to 10-15 years ago, so I don’t necessarily agree with the blanket statement that “the net is only getting more locked down.”
[1] I like to use the library as much as possible, if for nothing else than to increase usage numbers to marginally positively decrease the likelihood of finding cuts.
> Would it be nice to have a fully sanctioned pandemic library-style service? Absolutely.
This is basically LibGen / Anna’s Archive. A bit clunky around the download process (maybe things get better if you get a paid subscription though!), but overall it works pretty well.
>This is basically LibGen / Anna’s Archive. A bit clunky around the download process
Not at all. You visit libgen, search for your book, find it (usually available) click one of the two available links for it, click to download, have it download. Done.
It couldn't be easier.
Thanks for making me aware of this. This guy's heart is clearly (to me) in the right place, but his understanding of power is seriously lacking. That's probably what gave him the hubris to create Wayback and IA, but he'll be absolutely dumbstruck when they shut it down.
He won't be surprised at all. His slogan is "governments burn libraries". He's been able to forestall that for a while, and even provide public access, but permanence of the IA as an institution was never in the cards, given its subversive goal: universal access to all human knowledge.
Guess where the first backup copy of the Internet Archive is located.
Libraries are funded by the government. They've been diligently scanning books for decades but nobody has had even the slightest interest in that until their favourite hackerman showed up. Libertarian god complex is so tiresome.
Some libraries are government-funded. Many are not.
That ranges from the personal book collection numbering from one to many thousands in private hands, private institutional libraries (the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco is one that comes to mind, many private universities and grammar schools have their own, as do numerous corporations, some of which are catalogued by Worldcat).
Preservation of Western culture, notably the Greek and Roman canons, as well as much literature and knowledge of the Jewish, Byzantine, and Islamic worlds, occurred through religious institutions. Though in some regards those were the governments of the time. Indian, Chinese, and other further East Asian collections were preserved through multiple means.
Book digitisation at US academic institutions (the University of Michigan being a major contributor to both Google Books and HathiTrust) has had its own exctremely combative relationship with commercial publishers, as has the US Library of Congress, which issues US copyright in the first place.
Avoid slurs, it's an HN guideline: <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>.
Most libraries are not funded by a government. Your comment is not up to acceptable quality or civility standards and should not have been posted.
The Wayback machine is such an invaluable tool.
I've used it to track down when wording on a site (for someday relevant to my job) changed, for example.
I imagine there would be enough institutional support for the Way Back Machine from the likes of Wikipedia at least that even if the IA did go down the WBM would be carved off and kept alive. Effectively I think the IA will be broken up.
> In my opinion Kahle was wrong; the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing
Maybe. I think that is a pretty optimistic view of congress and our political process. I would argue that having a powerful, rich company with a monopoly to lose would have made passing such a law less likely, not more.
I do think we would have been better off with a Google monopoly on unpublished unclaimed books than with the lack of access we have today.
The article says:
> You’d get in a lot of trouble, they said, but all you’d have to do, more or less, is write a single database query. You’d flip some access control bits from off to on. It might take a few minutes for the command to propagate.
If it's so easy, I'm suprised nobody has done it and accepted the consequences. It seems one of the largest single positive impacts any person could make on the world. Once it's released, it'll never go back in the box. A modern Pandora.
In practice that is an obvious exaggeration for the purposes of making a point. It is probably simple enough to make the change, and it’s equally easy to change it back. One configuration makes you subject to massive lawsuits and the other doesn’t.
There was a lot of public debate about this at the time. Kahle's argument made sense.
[flagged]
I worked at the Library of Congress on their Digital Preservation Project, circa 2001-2003. The stated goal was to "digitize all of the Library's collections" and while most people think of books, I was in the Motion Picture Broadcast and Recorded Sound Division.
In our collection were Thomas Edison's first motion pictures, wire spool recordings from reporters at D-Day, and LPs of some of the greatest musicians of all time. And that was just our Division. Others - like American Heritage - had photos from the US Civil War and more.
Anyway, while the Rights information is one big, ugly tangled web, the other side is the hardware to read the formats. Much of the media is fragile and/or dangerous to use so you have to be exceptionally careful. Then you have to document all the settings you used because imagine that three months from now, you learn some filter you used was wrong or the hardware was misconfigured.. you need to go back and understand what was affected how.
Cool space. I wish I'd worked there longer.
Also.. it was fun learning the answer to "what is the work?"
If you have an LP or wire spool recording, the audio is the key, obvious work. But then you have the album cover, the spool case, and the physical condition of the media. Being able to see an album cover or read a reporter's notes/labeling is almost as important as the audio.
Is the Library of Congress really beholden to copyright laws? I guess I assumed as the national deposit library they had a special exemption to copy any damn thing they pleased for archival purposes.
If they don't have that prerogative, they probably should, and Congress should legislate that to be the case.
The Library of Congress and its staff determine fair use exceptions in certain contexts so I’m not sure who could find fault with them, as they could simply authorize it before or after the fact, from what I understand.
“Page had always wanted to digitize books. Way back in 1996, the student project that eventually became Google—a “crawler” that would ingest documents and rank them for relevance against a user’s query—was actually conceived as part of an effort “to develop the enabling technologies for a single, integrated and universal digital library.” The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons. But books still lived mostly on paper. Page and his research partner, Sergey Brin, developed their popularity-contest-by-citation idea using pages from the World Wide Web.“
Larry Page had some cool ideas… can’t imagine Books will ever be resurrected, unfortunately.
He really wanted to digitize all of them to provide reference and training data for early language models (well before LLMs, transformers, etc).
He also had a plan (with George Church) to build enormous warehouses holding large-scale biology research infrastructure right next to google data centers. Because most biology research is done at locations that have reached their limit on computational/storage capacity.
Larry had many good ideas but he struggled to get the majority of them off the ground. For example, when Trump was president and invited all the major tech leaders, Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
>Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
I feel like some crucial detail is missing here. They already use HVDC for long-distance transmission lines, inside and outside of the US. Texas could benefit from it I suppose, but the US in general already uses it where appropriate AFAIK.
> Larry had many good ideas but he struggled to get the majority of them off the ground. For example, when Trump was president and invited all the major tech leaders, Larry came with a plan to upgrade the US electrical system with long-range DC.
I fail to see how that would be a good idea.
To me, it looks like some magnate in a completely unrelated industry, who is megalomaniac enough to believe that they can enter a completely unrelated industry and explain to experts how things ought to get done.
His father was a computer scientist and his brother Carl is an electrical engineer; Carl has done extensive research in the area (and runs at least one company working on related problems) and Larry is highly educated about this stuff. He's not a megalomaniac- just completely unrealistic in how he pursues his goals.
He didn't originate the idea, it's well known that DC is more efficient but has other serious hurdles. It often takes innovative and influential people to break the status quo. E.g. Elon and EVs.
> E.g. Elon and EVs.
Man, Nissan just gets no love at all. They did the EV thing before Elon ran X into the ground (the bank, not the website formerly known as Twitter): https://www.motortrend.com/features/nissan-leaf-ev-history-p...
The claim wasn't "Elon made the first-ever, mass-produced, street-legal 0 emissions vehicle powered by electricity.
> it's well known that DC is more efficient but has other serious hurdles.
If it's well known but no one has done it, maybe there are reasons for it? Building long-distance lines is a very capital-intensive decision, and if the cost-benefit analysis was better, projects would be done. Looking by DOE's communication [1], we can see that the cost-benefit analysis doesn't look good now for a big network, but also that HVDC projects that actually make economic sense have been built for decades.
Sure, sometimes innovative people make a big change, but what's the innovation there?
[1]: https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/connecting-country-hvdc
There absolutely are HVDC transmission lines under the sea. And capital intensive, revolutionary projects are ripe for disruption from people who have already pulled off similar feats, hence why it would make sense for a Google founder to take interest.
> There absolutely are HVDC transmission lines under the sea.
Not sure where you see me claiming the opposite?
> And capital intensive, revolutionary projects are ripe for disruption from people who have already pulled off similar feats
If Larry Page is looking to waste a few billions in cables, he's absolutely welcome to do it. One HVDC connection between France and the UK is private, for instance [1]. If he believes there's money to be made similarly in the US, he should go for it.
That's not exactly the same offer as "Larry page has suggested the government should invest in expensive infrastructure for an industry he's never worked in".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElecLink
> Not sure where you see me claiming the opposite
Hmm, maybe the part where you said "but no one has done it"?
What is the point of this level of degeneracy in conversation?
> The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons.
You can do something similar to this already, by mapping which books are cited in Wikipedia articles. If you know how to do such a thing, because I don't.
Not specific to Wikipedia:
https://aarontay.medium.com/3-new-tools-to-try-for-literatur...
https://archive.is/Ul13s
Specific to Wikipedia:
Wikipedia Citations: Reproducible Citation Extraction from Multilingual Wikipedia [2024]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19291v1
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.19291
> Wikipedia is an essential component of the open science ecosystem, yet it is poorly integrated with academic open science initiatives. Wikipedia Citations is a project that focuses on extracting and releasing comprehensive datasets of citations from Wikipedia. A total of 29.3 million citations were extracted from English Wikipedia in May 2020. Following this one-off research project, we designed a reproducible pipeline that can process any given Wikipedia dump in the cloud-based settings. To demonstrate its usability, we extracted 40.6 million citations in February 2023 and 44.7 million citations in February 2024. Furthermore, we equipped the pipeline with an adapted Wikipedia citation template translation module to process multilingual Wikipedia articles in 15 European languages so that they are parsed and mapped into a generic structured citation template. This paper presents our open-source software pipeline to retrieve, classify, and disambiguate citations on demand from a given Wikipedia dump.
Prior work referenced in above abstract with some team overlap:
Wikipedia citations: A comprehensive data set of citations with identifiers extracted from English Wikipedia [2021]
https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/2/1/1/97565/Wikipedia-cit...
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00105
Datasets:
A Comprehensive Dataset of Classified Citations with Identifiers from English Wikipedia (2024)
https://zenodo.org/records/10782978
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10782978
A Comprehensive Dataset of Classified Citations with Identifiers from Multilingual Wikipedia (2024)
https://zenodo.org/records/11210434
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11210434
Code (MIT License):
https://github.com/albatros13/wikicite
https://github.com/albatros13/wikicite/tree/multilang
Bonus links:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/11/01/guest-post-wi...
…and then they sold out to a Wall Street dickhead, and here we are
O'Reilly, for whom I've been a lead author and co-author, did this: https://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042
They call it Founder's Copyright. The also use Creative Commons. The goal is to make out of print books available at no cost.
> A complete list of available titles is at www.oreilly.com/openbook
Exciting!
Follows link
Link no longer exists, gets O'Reilly front page instead
"Introducing the AI Academy, Help your entire org put GenAI to work"
Thanks O'Reilly.
Looks like Openbook stuff is still there, just homeless. I had to do a web search to find it. For example:
https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/make3/book/
Yes, I see it all with
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aoreilly.com+inurl%3Ao...
So it seems like it mainly lost the overview page?
It looks as though they killed the page sometime between June 7th and June 26th, although the page on June 7th seem to try to redirect to “https://oreilly.janrainsso.com/static/server.html?origin=htt...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240607220047/http://www.oreill...
Definitely perplexing, I can’t find the reason to kill what appears like a simple HTML page unless they’ve killed the project entirely.
Basically of no good now
The original dream of the internet: Information, freely available to any who want it.
The new dream of the internet: Some information, that aligns with the values of our advertisers, delivered via an LLM that sometimes makes shit up.
Whose dream? It's specifically here on HN that I find the largest number of comments bitching about the uselessness of the internet and how they replaced their own search efforts with just asking a hallucinating LLM, as if they had no choice in the matter. Great way to help make things better friends....
If anything the internet today is more loaded than ever with cool information and useful stuff, especially as ever larger bodies of formerly analog content get digitized and often with full open access. If one can get over their myopic naval gazing and cultivation of fetishism about everything having gone to shit, it's not even hard to find most of that useful information.
The internet -like any complex thing with multiple interests involved in its existence and operation- is just whatever works best for different people in different contexts, commercially, personally, technically and so forth. It's neither an ideal that one should obsess over or something to be neatly pigeonholed into a box of how it "should be". Adapt, use its tools to make whatever parts of it you can fit whatever your personal ideal is, instead of endlessly blaming advertisers or people just trying to make a living from one more commercial landscape.
Yeah, each year we inch closer to an internet where the only things to do revolve around buying things; watch “content” which mostly revolves around creators shilling products, research products, or buy products. Every hobby has to be monetized now, everything has to be a side hustle, every impression monetized. Few seem to bother anymore with personal blogs that exist for their own enjoyment and sharing of knowledge, and yet with all this paid creation, full-time artists struggle more than ever, largely unable to afford living costs in the very cities they helped to build the culture and value of.
I find it personally difficult to look at the entirety of the internet in 2024 and say that it’s definitely better for society than it was in 2004. I guess now at least we can mostly book appointments on our phones without having to speak with someone in real-time as they read dates and times off of a calendar interface that we can now just use ourselves directly.
There's nothing wrong with people trying to make money on the internet. You can sit in your bubble of personal dislikes and preferences, whining about average people using a very accessible tool to try to make a living for themselves, just like you presumably do in some way or another, but why not instead see the bigger picture of an internet in which not all things are shit and not all commercialization is automatically bad.
Personal blogs, creative efforts and wonderful resources still abound on the internet and can still usually be found quite easily if you put a bit of effort into looking.
and where the information you are looking for is plastered with ads.
yes I know adblocker, pihole, etc.
It's okay, I'll just check the Wayb--shit
Wayback Machine has been working for the past few days, look: https://web.archive.org/web/20240607220047/http://www.oreill...
It looks like the pdfs of at least some of the books are there. But it's a pretty small subset of their out of print books.
It's somewhat ironic that, while the individual books are still accessible, their index pages https://www.oreilly.com/free and https://www.oreilly.com/openbook both redirect to some AI propaganda these days, with no links to the books left.
A third party page still has links to some (possibly all) of the books: https://zapier.com/blog/free-oreilly-press-books/
I could not find a listing of available downloads. Sent an email inquiring about this. Will report if I get anything enlightening back.
This seems to be the fate of knowledge/content that stays in institutions which have been built with the idea of collecting it and growing it.. but have turned into walled gardens/crypts of sort. Rot/Rust and be forgotten.
A very cynical and dark view is that the New things/people need that oblivion in order to feel great, for not haveing to compare with old great-er ones. Rewriting history as it seems fit the current powers-that-be, is easier this way.
Or may be it's just collective stupidity? or societal immaturity ?
(i am coming from completely different killed project on a different continent, but the idea is the same)
I seriously doubt there's very much highly relevant old knowledge locked away somewhere. Is there interesting stuff we don't have good access to? Sure, but mainly of interest to historians (pro or amateur). You're not likely to find the cure for cancer written down in some 1000-year-old book somewhere. And while a few people might really be interested in reading decades or centuries-old novels that weren't popular enough to be called "classics" now, the vast majority of people aren't going to find such stories about people in the distant past all that interesting.
Of course, it's best to preserve past knowledge, but I think the idea that this is part of some kind of conspiracy to keep people buying new stuff is pretty silly. People are always going to want new stuff, as society grows and changes.
> find the cure for cancer written down in some 1000-year-old book somewhere.
While you're most likely right about the cure for cancer, I did want to note that this is kind of how the cure for malaria was found (artemisinin). Tu Youyou who won the nobel prize systematically investigated Traditional Chinese Medecine remedies until she came across one that was effective. That particular remedy was described in a 1600 years old text The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments, written in 340 by Ge Hong.
Note: before anyone think that the fact that a remedy described in traditional Chinese texts mean that TCM is reliable and a viable alternative in all text, she screened over 2,000 traditional Chinese recipes and made 380 herbal extracts, from some 200 herbs which were tested on mice. So, yes one of the remedy were successful but the success rate of TCM was not particularly high :)
This is really interesting actually, but I do want to point out that I'm not saying all old knowledge is only of interest to historians: I was arguing against the idea that some old knowledge is "locked away" and not publicly available as part of some kind of conspiracy.
Lots of old knowledge is readily available to the public. The complete works of Shakespeare are a good example here, as is Homer's epics The Odyssey and The Iliad. (I don't know if that TCM stuff is or not.) These kinds of things are considered "classics" and are frequently reproduced, now available online in countless places, etc. Obviously, lots of people besides historians think they're important, and so they're copied frequently and made available at large. As the famous rule goes, "99% of everything is crap", so probably all the best stuff from the past is well-preserved, and the rest, not so much. I seriously doubt that something as good as Shakespeare is locked away in someone's private library and virtually unknown to almost anyone.
Of course, there's always exceptions and you never know when some overlooked tidbit of info from the distant past might be really useful, as you showed here, so I do think it's important to preserve and enable easy access to as many old works as possible.
> I seriously doubt there's very much highly relevant old knowledge locked away somewhere.
Interesting take on what "knowledge" means and what makes knowledge valuable.
If I understand "knowledge" as "information directly relevant to a technical problem", then:
- the knowledge which remains relevant to that problem will stay available to practitioners (i.e. the properties of a Gaussian distribution, from Gauss, 1809)
- the knowledge which is no longer relevant to that problem will probably be lost (how to compute the integral of a Gaussian using a slide rule. Slide rules first developed circa 1620, last used circa 1970)
In other words, yes, your point is profoundly true. Knowledge relevant to a specific task stays available, not relevant gets pruned quickly.
My question would be if we want to use that definition of relevant and that understanding of what drives value. i.e. I'm not asking if you are correct, I've just shown that you are correct. My question is if the assumptions/values which make this correct are assumptions/values we are comfortable with. In other words, is is wise?
It's not just technical knowledge either: look at Shakespeare's works. They're centuries old, but there's absolutely no danger of those disappearing. Lots of old stuff is well-preserved and highly duplicated for easy access.
My video streaming data supports this idea even tho I rewatch all Star Trek series (except TOS).
The books project was very early in Google's history. Possibly before their IPO. Since then, they've shed their don't be evil motto and shitcanned the 20% time affordance for new projects.
I think it's neatly summarized in two words: shareholder growth.
I think you are on to something, people frequently don’t want to grapple with and understand what has been done before, they prefer to just wing it and move forward on their own.
I am fairly certain there is more knowledge/content available to anyone in this century than last century or any century before it. But perhaps I have misread your comment.
With library genesis, who needs Google Books anymore? I buy books physically to support the author/s and download an epub version from said site to my kindle. The physical books I hardly read, they are for my shelf. Although I love the feeling of printed books, but I read in bed, and it‘s easier to hold an ebook. Also I read when I commute. It’s lighter to have my Kindle Oasis with me with tons of books on it.
Someone needs to scan the book and upload it to library genesis. The article said Google had developed this massively efficient apparatus for scanning (or taking photographs of) books, and most of the article was about out-of-print books.
I personally have actually tried to contribute to libgen a particular difficult-to-find-online book by buying it, scanning it, and uploading it. There need to be more people doing this.
Did you use a scanning service or do it yourself?
I did it myself. A few hours for 500 pages. Surprisingly soothing.
There’s the everything available online for free mindset. But, yes, I’ve basically donated all my books that were in the public domain. And, in general, have been massively purging my book collection of stuff I won’t realistically read again.
I do buy books, to support the authors. And I would encourage anyone to support the authors they like to read.
I agree, but also wouldn't lose sleep for pirating a book of an author that died more than 20 years ago, in most contexts.
Many books aren’t on libgen. It’s been rather hit and miss for me.
how sure are you that library genesis will remain available?
Well, we got a large number of mirrors. Just like scientific hub. But to be honest: We cannot be sure. That’s why I have my physical books as well ;)
IMO if a work is out of print (or equivalent depending on the medium) for more than a few years, it should be released into the public domain. Or maybe something like the public domain, but requires attribution.
Like trademark: Use it or lose it.
(The reality is that publishers would put lazy photocopies up for sale at ten zillion dollars a piece.)
Have you dealt with publishers? If a work is out of print for a few years, much better to have rights revert to the creator.
Even that doesn't always work --- I was rebuffed by Joan Turville-Petre's son when I asked for a license to reprint his mother's notes on J.R.R. Tolkien's translation of _The Old English Exodus_ on the grounds that he would prefer to work with an academic, rather than an individual.
Anyone know an academic specializing in Old English who would like to oversee this reprinting? I have a typeset PDF which only wants proofreading and updating of the index.
Public Domain Review?
Then every book will be immediately out of print after its initial run, while the not-quite-a-cartel of publishers all decline to print it until it hits the point where they no longer have to pay the author.
Then the publisher loses out on exclusive publishing rights and also loses money. It's in their interests to keep it in print so long as it's a profitable book, even if they have to pay some percentage to the author. Once it goes into public domain every publisher can reprint it and the original publisher has to compete with them on price.
Part of the problem here is a change in tax law a couple of decades back where the backlist as a bunch of printed books in a warehouse became a tax liability when Congress tried to close a tax loophole which non-publishers were exploiting.
Rather than the old model of printing a reasonable print run, selling books as demand allowed, and keeping unsold books in warehouses only paying tax as they were sold, the new laws required paying tax on inventory each year --- so any books not sold in the first year were not as profitable, hence book remaindering, and the current mess.
> so long as it's a profitable book
And here is the rub. You’ll end up with three or four super authors with the rest being ripped off.
Much better for it to revert to the author in that situation IMO.
I'm not arguing for it (or against it for that matter), I was just pointing out that the analysis in the comment I responded to didn't make sense. Every book won't be allowed to fall out of print and copyright just to exploit the authors because it would also hurt the publishers, they also benefit from exclusive publishing rights. Publishing rights are granted by the copyright holder (the author) to the publisher, much like patent licenses.
Regarding unprofitable books, they'll fall out of print anyways because they're unprofitable. Those authors won't be getting ripped off because they won't be making money either way beyond initial commissions and what few sales they get.
> Much better for it to revert to the author in that situation IMO.
The publisher doesn't hold the copyright, the author does, so copyright (the particular right under discussion) can't revert to the author as it never left the author. What the publisher holds is publishing rights per a contract with the author. That could revert back to the author (or be voided or however it's structured), and that would be reasonable but we don't need any laws for it, that would fall under normal contract terms. Whether it's a common thing now or feasible for a particular author (with no clout? maybe not, with billions in sales from prior books? probably) is another matter.
ok
Do we really need publishers anymore?
They are useful for quality control when the author is not well known.
As someone who has both independently published and gone through a technical publisher, there’s still a stamp of approval, fully deserved or not, associated with your book being published by a known name.
So, e-books are either immediately out of print, or never out of print?
By "in print" I mean, the publisher is actively selling it.
Although, if I were writing the law I would require selling DRM free ebooks for ebooks to count for maintaining the copyright.
What if we applied the simple test that the book was originally published on paper and no other printings have occurred (digital or paper).
Never out of print. If there's an e-copy available to buy, that's better than millions of other books.
A huge proportion of this corpus is found in the Hathi Trust (see https://www.hathitrust.org/the-collection/). We have had a grant to crawl and derive an index on it via their supercomputing resources. I'm sure they are looking to LLM proposals, though they are exceedingly careful about the copyright issues.
https://www.hathitrust.org/
>I'm sure they are looking to LLM proposals
Well, it is a use case for this challenge https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/gemini-long-context
thank you as some of us were looking for something to replace the archive.org digital book library part....
https://archive.is/rQ7Zb
Thanks Paul!
Wrong number, I'm afraid.
Thanks Peter
Thanks Mary
Of course someone needs to scan/digitise those books but for those which already are, there is Anna’s Archive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
it's a shame you have to pirate your way to find a book that is practically unavailable, but I support pirating old unavailable stuff
Programmers not law makers really control what goes and doesnt online.
Bittorent and ipfs etc are nice but things would be better if there was a large static archive with desktop clients exchanging chunks in a complex modular way.
Say: I have pages 1-15 of file 123456, you have page 16 but are looking for page 1 of doc 2345, if i can obtain that page a fast exchange is possible. If not a different module can issue an iou that either means i owe something, you are owed something or both. Other modules could create groups that aim to store part of the archive without duplication amoung members. Spam driven modules could also be interesting.
The archive can be organized by how dubious the copyright is so that one can limit participation to 50 or 100+ year old publications and/or living or dead authors.
Its not unlike living on a far away island with the british empire seeking to control every aspect of your life without sufficient means of force.
We need a Copyright Term Reduction Act.
It's time. 50 years, renewal is possible but expensive.
Just my opinion but as a starting point for the argument...
Note this is not TRADE MARK; trade marks are _consumer protection_ related to 'brand ownership'.Google Books is a tragedy of the commons problem, created by copyright, which is supposedly a solution to the tragedy of the commons problem.
Even 50 is a lot, because it starts at the death of the author. Popular culture shouldn't remain locked out for generations. 50 maximum would be ideal, two generations from the one who experienced it in the original cultural context.
50 years from first publication. That's all the TRIPS agreement requires.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
And that's still a lot, since fifty years from publication is the minimum to abide to TRIPS, but we're used to much worse, so it doesn't sound as bad now. It could be shorter, things move a lot faster nowadays, a single generation of monopoly means more today than a hundred years ago.
And reign in the damages for infringement to some amount closer to what was actually lost. For instance, if someone has a million books on a drive they haven't deprived the publisher of a million sales for chrissakes
I’m sure the lawyers will eventually figure out a way to train an LLM on them.
They probably already have! It seems like an amazing training dataset even if you can't share source data.
How do you train an LLM such that it is guaranteed to never regurgitate its training data?
You punish it if parts of the answer can be found in its training data, and reward it otherwise.
But the whole point of the training is that you reward it if it correctly reproduces the next token.
That's not the whole point of the training. It's just (very loosely) a measure of loss used during pre-training. There are many post-training and alignment stages in a typical model that are designed to reward high-quality responses.
Technically, yes, it's impossible to guarantee that it won't just regurgitate source material (which is mostly around the tails of the data distribution), but the whole point of training is to build generalized intelligence.
I guess I used the wrong wording but it doesn't change the argument. Yes, the whole point of training is to build generalized intelligence (or at least that's what we __hope__ for). But as far as I understand, we do it __mainly__ by training for the next word in the sequence.
PS: you speak of "pre-training" and "post-training", so I'm curious what you think is the main part of the training (?)
James Somers writes beautifully; https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/james-somers has some of his other writing
> Copyright terms have been radically extended in this country largely to keep pace with Europe, where the standard has long been that copyrights last for the life of the author plus 50 years. But the European idea, “It’s based on natural law as opposed to positive law,” Lateef Mtima, a copyright scholar at Howard University Law School, said. “Their whole thought process is coming out of France and Hugo and those guys that like, you know, ‘My work is my enfant,’” he said, “and the state has absolutely no right to do anything with it—kind of a Lockean point of view.” As the world has flattened, copyright laws have converged, lest one country be at a disadvantage by freeing its intellectual products for exploitation by the others. And so the American idea of using copyright primarily as a vehicle, per the constitution, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not to protect authors, has eroded to the point where today we’ve locked up nearly every book published after 1923.
This is disingenuous: the article doesn’t mention that the biggest proponent of the prolonging of the copyright terms were Americans (e.g., Walt Disney Corp and Jack Valenti, see “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” for more) not Europeans.
> “Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
Greeted with a paywall on the source. Hypocracy...
I never seen an explicit mention if the Google Books corpus was indeed or not used for training LLMs…
Anyone knows more about it?
For Kagi users, I recommend putting books.google.com as a pinned domain. This way, you'll many times be presented with some of the best sources for any search query. Then it's a matter of finding the ePub file of that book. To read on MacOS, FBReader is a high quality app.
Thanks. Looks like it's available for Windows/Linux too. At last as of FBReader 2.1.2 30th September 2024.
Good. It’s important that free access not be permitted. We don’t know what personal data might be contained within. We should only allow those works after a human (appropriately certified) has verified that no personal data exists within.
If it exists within the book must be destroyed in its entirety. Too many works of so-called scholarship have relied on the personal letters of dead people.
We should not reward grave robbing. The most important thing is the personal data. We must protect the personal data.
Written from a capitalist perspective, extolling "market forces" and legitimizing corporate and government limitations on copying.
"between 1923 and 1963 ... copyrights back then had to be renewed, and often the rightsholder wouldn’t bother filing the paperwork" - oh no, how terrible. How lucky we are that in these modern times one doesn't even have to file paperwork in order to prevent you from copying information.
and they go on to suck to Google and decry how they didn't get to legitimize their control over a large swath of human knowledge and cultural heritage.
"It certainly seems unlikely that someone is going to spend political capital—especially today—trying to change the licensing regime for books, let alone old ones." <- copyright regime, licensing regime - all of this stuff is illegitimate apriori. Poetry, literature, music, software, papers and books - we cannot and must not tolerate restrictions on their dissemination.
What arrangements the commercial and governmental entities come to, our "arrangement" should be that everything gets disseminated widely and without restriction, so that curtailment, censorship, commercial control etc. just fail.
Ironically behind a paywall (and below a political ad)
Sad and criminal.
> what happened with piano rolls, with records, with radio, and with cable—isn’t that copyright holders squash the new technology. Instead, they cut a deal and start making money from it.
> “History has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests,” Wu writes.
It is completely braindead to argue that market forces had anything to do with compulsory licensing. It is a matter determined by courts in the public interest.
The tragedy is that Google is tasked with this at all. It would be cool if public libraries could work together on a massive public digital library. This shouldn't be Google's responsibility.
Google wasn't tasked (by a third party) with this, they chose to do it.
arguably Google was invented to fund this project.
The books project predates the search engine and the search engine grew out of the project of creating a universal digital library. The PageRank algorithm is one of a class of algorithms used to score citations in books and papers.
HathiTrust was ... nearly this.
Until it too was emasculated.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HathiTrust>
Otherwise, we have Project Gutenberg (public domain), OpenLibrary (Internet Archive, both PD and copyrighted works), ZLibrary, Library Genesis, and Anna's Archive.
All humans everywhere have a responsibility to preserve culture and knowledge to the best of their ability. I think what you meant to say is that none of us can trust Google with this important task.
One of the great tragedies of civilization is that we leave things in the hands of those who do them rather than in the hands of those who tell us about our responsibility to do them.
[dead]
TL;DR: bye bye Google
[flagged]
Google must be tempted to put them in an LLM.
It would surprise me greatly if they haven't already.
Another reason that they should never have been allowed to ingest all the books in the first place. Without paying for the rights to use the digital form of the book, a use which is explicitly prohibited by the publisher, they digitized the books anyway. If they used it to train an LLM, and the LLM regurgitates near facsimiles of all the copyrighted works without compensation to the original rights holders, that seems like something that should be illegal.