The complaint targets more than copyright
The groups are asking the FTC to examine whether bulk acquisition and destruction can reduce access, disadvantage rivals, and concentrate valuable training material. They also want the agency to establish whether irreplaceable or last surviving copies were involved.
Those are allegations awaiting investigation. They should not be collapsed into the separate question of whether a legally purchased book may be used for model training under copyright law. Ownership of one copy does not automatically answer what happens when an industry-scale acquisition removes sources from circulation.
The record should survive the model
Books are not only inputs. They are inspectable cultural records that scholars, libraries, competitors, and the public may need later. Destroying the source after extracting its informational value can make the model more useful while making its provenance less auditable.
A credible policy response could require inventories, preservation checks, library partnerships, and clear documentation of acquisition and disposal. The principle is simple: digitization should not turn shared evidence into a one-way private asset.
Go to the source
Read the evidence behind this analysis. External links open in a new tab.
CBS News — AI companies accused of hoarding and destroying millions of books
