> In this video, we look at why Tim Curry’s Long John Silver works so well in Muppet Treasure Island, not just because he’s funny, theatrical, and completely larger than life, but because he understood the real magic of acting with the Muppets.

> There’s a popular idea that Michael Caine treated the Muppets like real actors, while Tim Curry treated himself like a fellow Muppet. But according to Curry himself, that isn’t quite right. He didn’t see Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, Rizzo, or the rest of the Muppet crew as props or puppets. He treated them as fully formed characters with their own personalities, timing, and emotional lives. That may be the key to why his performance feels so alive.

> This video essay explores Tim Curry’s casting as Long John Silver, his love for the Muppets, his larger-than-life theatrical style, and the behind-the-scenes energy of Muppet Treasure Island. We also look at how the Muppet performers stayed in character, how Curry approached the songs and comedy, why the “A Professional Pirate” number works so well, and how one surprisingly heartfelt scene with Jim Hawkins revealed a more vulnerable side of Curry’s acting.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) - Merry Christmas, You Filthy Animal Scene - https://youtu.be/h_bUcNjmuSk

History of the Universe : What Is Hidden In The Core Of A Neutron Star? - https://youtu.be/YoYjkNQ27T8

That video goes into it... without getting mathy at any point.

One of the bits that you're having trouble with is the compression of matter to a point. There's a theoretical type of black hole known as a kugelblitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

    A kugelblitz is a theoretical astrophysical object predicted by general relativity. It is a concentration of heat, light, or radiation so intense that its energy forms an event horizon and becomes self-trapped. In other words, if enough radiation is aimed into a region of space, the concentration of energy can warp spacetime so much that it creates a black hole. This would be a black hole the original mass–energy of which was in the form of radiant energy rather than matter

What Happens at the Event Horizon? - https://youtu.be/mht-1c4wc0Q

Escape The Kugelblitz Challenge - https://youtu.be/v3hd3AI2CAA

Mapping the Multiverse - https://youtu.be/4v9A9hQUcBQ

Every book that has been published in the United States has a copy in the Library of Congress.

Neutron Radiography: Proceedings of the First World Conference San Diego, California, U.S.A. December 7–10, 1981 is a rare book - there's only one copy available from used book sellers on Amazon.

There is a copy of it in the Library of Congress. https://search.catalog.loc.gov/instances/b220c9bd-63ad-5a8b-... . You can go to the Science and Business reading room and request it so you can read it. https://www.loc.gov/research-centers/science-and-business/ab...

For any book that has been published, you can do this. It might not be in the United States if it wasn't published here... it would be in other national libraries (Tom Scott This library has every book ever published. https://youtu.be/ZNVuIU6UUiM )

Chasing links from the article you linked gives examples. https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/25/rare-book-dealers-fear-tech-fi...

    “We have compiled a very extensive list of editions that we are currently trying to acquire, and we plan to place a fairly large order. The list is attached,” the email said.

    The attachment contained 3,000 English-language titles organized by ISBN number, including books such as Distinct Element Modelling in Geomechanics by K.R. Saxena (1999); Barrett's Traditional Fairy Tales (2021), an academic study of Irish folklore; and Laser Shock Peening of Advanced Ceramics by Pratik Shukla (2018).

The last copy of a book is not destroyed.

and that you're arguing that a library could accept a donation.

From Bartz v. Anthropic which was mostly about the pirated copies, but included some information about the destructive scanning, format shifting, and use as training as fair use.

> Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy. The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company. This use was even more clearly transformative than those in Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax (where the number of copies went up by at least one), and, of course, more transformative than those uses rejected in Napster (where the number went up by “millions” of copies shared for free with others).

> ...

> As a result, Anthropic’s format-change from print library copies to digital library copies was transformative under fair use factor one. Anthropic was entitled to retain a copy of these works in a print format. It retained them instead in a digital format, easing storage and searchability. And, the further copies made therefrom for purposes of training LLMs were themselves transformative for that further reason, as above.

Note especially the second sentence in the first paragraph. "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company."

If the physical copy was shown, shared, or sold outside of the company the fair use defense would likely be much weaker than it currently is.

After the company has format shifted the original and retained the digital version, it cannot share or donate the original back to some other organization.

A library might take the books. It would be a legal liability for an AI company to give those books away and weaken the fair use claim that it stands on from Bartz v. Anthropic. The destruction of the original enhances the fair use claim.

From the ruling:

> For the print library copies that Anthropic purchased and then converted into digital library copies, Anthropic already enjoyed entitlement to keep the copies in its library. The purpose of the copying was to keep them in its library but with more favorable storage and searchability properties. Copying the entire work was exactly what this purpose required. There was no surplus copying. The source copy was destroyed.

> The third fair use factor favors fair use for the purchased library copies converted from print to digital.

There are no surplus copies when the original is destroyed.

First, in today's environment people will state AI hallucinations as fact or "google it yourself" as the reference. If someone doesn't know where to find that information they're left with the "someone on the net said XYZ".

Secondly, I'm not always certain that if I do provide a link to a large document that people will find the relevant section in there. And second and a halfly, if someone comes back to it in a year or two or five that the link will still be live. I've had situations in the past where I've provided a link and then the domain changes hands and the new owners of the site put up a retroactive robots.txt and make it inaccessible on the wayback machine.

---

The question for an AI company that can't return, sell, or donate the material after it has been scanned - are they then to pay to store it in a warehouse indefinitely?

After they've format shifted the content and retained the format shifted content for continued use in training, it becomes at least a very gray area to donate the original.

And even if the books were scanned like Google Books did, and they could donate them to libraries - the libraries don't want those books. These aren't rare books in that people would expect you to wear cotton gloves while handling them... they're books that have mostly disappeared from availability.

https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1vugion/the_federal_... provides an example of what is being seen in a used book store:

> I work for a large used bookstore with an online component. We're getting slammed with orders for books like the proceedings of an obscure 1992 Dutch geology conference or $500 festschrifts about D-module applications we would have previously sold to some university library. We've never once had an order for anything anybody would actually want, and most of this shit has sat on our shelves for years, if not decades.

Neutron Radiography: Proceedings of the First World Conference San Diego, California, U.S.A. December 7–10, 1981 is technically a rare book. https://www.amazon.com/Neutron-Radiography-Proceedings-Confe...

If you had a copy of it, I would challenge you to find a library that would accept it as a donation.

In the event that you wanted to read a copy of it, there is a copy of it in the Library of Congress. https://search.catalog.loc.gov/instances/b220c9bd-63ad-5a8b-...

... And it would require renegotiating the treaty with all of these countries so that AI training is easier. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/231

... Or it would require the US to withdraw from the WTO and pass new laws for how copyright works.

I don't believe that neither the renegotiation nor the withdrawal would be something that would be done.

... And I believe that automatic copyright (as has been part of the Berne Convention since 1886) is a good thing.

> Background Valancourt Books is a print-on-demand independent publishing house specializing in rare and out-of-print books. Valancourt had not registered its books for copyright as the Library of Congress already had original-edition copies of the books Valancourt republishes and any new material in its publications was limited to notes and introductions.

If you want a physical copy of The Sorrows of Satan, you can buy it from them.

Their argument is that the Library of Congress already has a copy of the book ( https://search.catalog.loc.gov/instances/a0f8fcfe-a255-55d2-... ) and having them deposit it again would be unnecessary.

> The Copyright Office has stated that it would modify the language of its deposit demand letters and withdraw its demand for copies if the Copyright Office was notified of the copyright's abandonment.

> Several legislative changes have been proposed to address all elements of the case: changes to Section 407 to tie some legal benefit to the deposit, monetary compensation to copyright holders for depositing books, and regulation for a simple and costless method of copyright abandonment.

That doesn't change that if you were to publish a book today (or for that matter, have published a book in the past 100 years in the US), you are required to deposit a copy of the book with the Library of Congress.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/modul...

    (iii) Automatic protection A key feature of the Berne Convention, and thus also of the TRIPS Agreement, is that copyright protection - unlike most other forms of IPRs - may not be subject to any formality of registration, deposit, or the like. This principle is contained in Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention, that has been incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement.

https://btaa.org/library/programs-and-services/book-search/f...

> Will scanning harm the books?

> No. Google developed innovative technology to scan the content without harming the books. Any book deemed too fragile will not be scanned by Google, but may be treated by expert library staff. Once scanned, all print volumes are returned to the library collections.

That was an inherently different goal (borrow the books from the library, scan them, and return them) than the Bartz v. Antrophic ruling.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/...

> Storage and searchability are not creative properties of the copyrighted work itself but physical properties of the frame around the work or informational properties about the work. See Texaco, 802 F. Supp. at 14 (physical), aff’d, 60 F.3d at 919; Google, 804 F.3d at 225 (informational); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (“Sony Betamax”), 464 U.S. 417, 447 (1984) (rightful interests). In Texaco, the court reasoned that if a purchased scientific journal article had been copied “onto microfilm to conserve space, this might [have been] a persuasive transformative use.” 802 F. Supp. at 14 (Judge Pierre Leval), aff’d, 60 F.3d at 919 (reducing “bulk[ ]” “might suffice to tilt the first fair use factor in favor of Texaco if these purposes were dominant“). In Google Books, the court reasoned that a print-to-digital change to expose information about the work was transformative. Google, 804 F.3d at 225 (Judge Pierre Leval). And, in Sony Betamax, the Supreme Court held that making a recording of a television show in order to instead watch it at a later time was copying but did not usurp any rightful interest of the copyright owner. 464 U.S. at 447, 455. Important to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the expectation that most such copiers would not distribute the permanent copies of the work. Finally, in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., our court of appeals recognized the reasoning just explained, and therefore rejected by contrast a digitization effort that was touted as space-shifting but in fact resulted in the multiplication of copies shared with outsiders through a file-sharing service. 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), aff’g in this part 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 912–13, 915–16 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (Judge Marilyn Hall Patel) (citing Sony Betamax and Texaco).

> Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy. The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company. This use was even more clearly transformative than those in Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax (where the number of copies went up by at least one), and, of course, more transformative than those uses rejected in Napster (where the number went up by “millions” of copies shared for free with others).

---

The AI training isn't borrowing from libraries and returning from libraries. Instead, it is buying a book, format shifting, and retaining that format shifted version from its own use. The company can't do anything else with the book once they've format shifted it. They can't donate it and they can't resell it. In that light, destructively scanning the book is the best option. There is no value in trying to non-destructively scan it because otherwise all it would do is sit in a warehouse and cost money to pay for storage of something they can't sell.

Publishing of copyrighted material requires that it be deposited with the Library of Congress.

What happens to limited editions of print runs? Can I not make a run of 200 prints anymore because the 201st will be something that someone could request?

Does a musician have to license any song they made to anyone who asks? Can they refuse to license a song to some organization they disagree with and not have it fall into the orphan works category?

---

Amending copyright to the way you describe requires a renegotiation of the TRIPS agreement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement ) with all the nations of the WTO (or withdrawing from the WTO).

https://www.copyright.gov/mandatory/

> All works under copyright protection that are published in the United States are subject to the mandatory deposit provision of the Copyright Act (section 407 of Title 17).

> This law requires two copies of each work published in the United States be deposited with the Copyright Office within three months of publication. Works deposited under this law are for the use of the Library of Congress. Usually, deposited copies must be the “best edition” of the work, which means they must conform to the Library of Congress’s preferred specifications.

----

> Acceptable Formats for Deposit of Electronic Works

> The deposit of electronic works is arranged with the Acquisitions & Deposits division.

> For electronic-only works, submit the best edition in accordance with the formats listed in the “Electronic-Only Works Published in the United States and Available Only Online” section of the Best Edition Statement (PDF, 135 KB).

> For works subject to a grant of special relief, unless otherwise specified, the Library will accept an appropriate “preferred” format listed on the Library of Congress Recommended Formats Statement. Such files must contain no measures (such as digital rights management [DRM] technologies or encryption) that control access to or prevent use of the digital work.

> For more information about electronic deposit, see the above FAQ “When can I make an electronic deposit of a work?”

---

> When can I make an electronic deposit of a work?

> Works may be deposited in a physical format in accordance with the Best Edition Statement, which can be found in Best Edition of Published Copyrighted Works for the Collections of the Library of Congress (Circular 7B) (PDF, 135 KB).

> Works may be deposited electronically in certain circumstances:

> The Copyright Office issues a written demand for an electronic-only book or serial. If your work is published only online and the Office sends you a written demand for mandatory deposit of the work, you must deposit the work electronically.

> The Copyright Office offers you electronic deposit as an alternative to depositing a physical copy of the work. If you receive a letter offering special relief to deposit a work in an electronic format instead of sending physical copies, follow the instructions in the letter or agreement.

---

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/text.html

https://www.copyright.gov/mandatory/

> All works under copyright protection that are published in the United States are subject to the mandatory deposit provision of the Copyright Act (section 407 of Title 17).

> This law requires two copies of each work published in the United States be deposited with the Copyright Office within three months of publication. Works deposited under this law are for the use of the Library of Congress. Usually, deposited copies must be the “best edition” of the work, which means they must conform to the Library of Congress’s preferred specifications.

> Mandatory deposit applies to any work published in the United States. This requirement does not apply to works first published in a foreign country until they are published in the United States. Copyright registration is optional, but it provides additional legal benefits and fulfills the mandatory deposit requirement with the submission of the required copies.

Can you do anything else with the book? What are its costs for storage in a way that retains the value of the book? If the assets of the warehouse are sold to another company (see also https://paizo.com/blog/paizo-restructuring-a-difficult-updat... ), what are your obligations for the format shifted copy that you retain?

These questions imply that there's a liability that exists when retaining the original that has little value to the company. And they (the books) aren't assets that can be resold.

It's easier (and cheaper), has no ongoing costs for physical storage, and answers those questions without creating legal entanglements for the future company.

While the hard copy is a bit pricy for my shelf of curious books, it's also available on kindle. https://www.amazon.com/SYSTEMANTICS-SYSTEMS-BIBLE-John-Gall-...

> Correct. I work for a large used bookstore with an online component. We're getting slammed with orders for books like the proceedings of an obscure 1992 Dutch geology conference or $500 festschrifts about D-module applications we would have previously sold to some university library. We've never once had an order for anything anybody would actually want, and most of this shit has sat on our shelves for years, if not decades. It would have eventually found its way to the discount rack and then the dumpster. At least this way we're getting some money in that we can use to buy actual cool books/collections, pay salaries and bills, etc.

So... something like Neutron Radiography: Proceedings of the First World Conference San Diego, California, U.S.A. December 7–10, 1981 - https://www.amazon.com/Neutron-Radiography-Proceedings-Confe...

I make no claims that that's a such a book that's been ordered, but that's the type of book that the reddit post references.

Berne Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention (182 parties)

TRIPS Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement (164 parties - part of WTO)

The United States can't make copyright weaker than what those agreements require without pulling out of the WTO.

The core of copyright law is about who has the right to redistribute a work. If I buy a print of a photograph, scan it and use that as my desktop image... I can do that. I cannot redistribute the scanned image, and if I was to sell the print later I should delete the scanned image.

Note that format shifting is covered under fair use... which is what training is taking place under. However, that doesn't mean that they can release that format shifted content... nor can then re-release the original work if they are retaining the format shifted content.

https://library.georgetown.edu/copyright/fair-use-reformatti...

    Under § 106 of the Copyright Law of the United States, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies of that work, unless an exception applies. When considering reformatting media, please note that individuals do not have an automatic right to reformat a work from one format to another. In order to legally convert media, your use must fall into one of the following categories:

    you own the copyright in the work,
    you have permission from the owner of the copyright, or
    you have done a fair use analysis and have determined that fair use applies

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49362654

Points: 1

# Comments: 0