There’s an Ars Technica article published yesterday or the day before about the book metadata scraping, and a representative for AA came right out and said they deliberately violate copyright law in most countries.
They believe, apparently, that collecting information is more valuable than being legal. In that case, they were ordered by a court to delete the data they scraped and they were not expected to comply (and have not done so). The .org suspension was thought to be related to that. Apparently it is not.
Yeah like it’s fine if you’re Meta (Facebook) and you pirate books to train AI, but if you say it’s for human knowledge, so that a poor person in a third world country who might pull in $100 a month can still have access to books and music… they figure it’s worth it if a bunch of spoiled Americans can also get it for free, as long as they seed.
It isn’t.
There’s an Ars Technica article published yesterday or the day before about the book metadata scraping, and a representative for AA came right out and said they deliberately violate copyright law in most countries.
They believe, apparently, that collecting information is more valuable than being legal. In that case, they were ordered by a court to delete the data they scraped and they were not expected to comply (and have not done so). The .org suspension was thought to be related to that. Apparently it is not.
Woah woah woah there cowboy! That’s only ok when you’re big tech, not when you do it against them. Sheesh, the nerve on this guy…
Yeah like it’s fine if you’re Meta (Facebook) and you pirate books to train AI, but if you say it’s for human knowledge, so that a poor person in a third world country who might pull in $100 a month can still have access to books and music… they figure it’s worth it if a bunch of spoiled Americans can also get it for free, as long as they seed.
I see, it’s a good article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/judge-orders-annas-archive-to-delete-scraped-data-no-one-thinks-it-will-comply/