Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
The Wiki Piggy Bank
Wikimedia grows rich as Wikipedia donations are used for political causes
August 20, 2023
post photo preview

Over the last two decades, Wikipedia has become one of the most visited -- and most referenced --websites on Earth.

And nearly every one of us is familiar with Wikipedia's regular requests for donations, often including urgent-sounding text along the lines of "protect Wikipedia's independence" and "without reader contributions, we couldn’t run Wikipedia."

Sounds pretty dire, right?  Wikipedia must be in pretty rough shape!  They need those donations right away!  If I don't donate, they might need to shut down!  Surely they run a pretty tight ship, with some pretty lean and mean operations... right?  And surely -- surely -- the funds they have are being handled in a transparent way!

You know what?

Just for kicks, let's take a look at the finances of Wikipedia -- using all publicly available sources of documentation (including IRS filings, annual reports, and audits) -- and see what the real financial state of Wikipedia is like.

Because this is The Lunduke Journal.  And that's what we do.

Spoiler: It's all really, really weird.  And highly sketchy.  Also a ton of money donated for Wikipedia... isn't used to run Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation

The financial core of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Foundation, itself, is responsible for running the actual Wikipedia servers -- and that is where everything else branches out from.

Let's start with the most basic piece of information we need:

How much money does The Wikimedia Foundation receive, in donations, every year -- from people who believe they are directly funding the Wikipedia servers?

According to the most recent IRS filings (2021)... roughly $164 Million USD for the year.

Public Donations to Wikimedia, per year.  Source: 990.

Year-on-year, Wikimedia is seeing significant growth -- with each year recording record donations.  Up an additional $9 Million between 2020 and 2021 alone.

While those numbers seem large, at first glance, they really only tell a small part of the story.

What if -- for example -- Wikipedia needs even more than $164 Million, every single year, to operate?  What are the various expenses of Wikipedia?

Luckily, we have a high level breakout of expenses in the yearly Wikimedia Foundation audit.

Turns out, the costs associated with the server hosting of Wikipedia for 2021 was just shy of $2.4 Million.

But server hosting costs are only part of the equation, right?  There's also other wages, travel, and all manner of expenses.  So let's add it all up.

Revenue and Expenses.  Source: 2021 Audit.  Note: The numbers shown for 2022 are not final and are likely to be wildly different than the numbers published in the official 2022 audit.

After all is said and done -- and all revenue and expenses are taken into consideration -- The Wikimedia Foundation received over $50 Million dollars more than they spent in 2021.

They made $50+ million in profit.

Doesn't sound like an organization that is hurting for funding... does it?

Let's take a look back over the last few years (starting in 2015) and chart out the yearly financials of Wikimedia.  It shows some absolutely astonishing growth in terms of total assets (such as money in the bank).

Sources: Yearly 990's and Public Wikimedia Audits

A few items worth noting:

  • Server Hosting related costs for all Wikipedia related sites was $2 Million in 2015.  It has remained mostly flat (compared to income and other costs) only raising to $2.4 Million as of 2021.
  • As of 2021, Wikimedia has over $231 Million in assets.  And growing... rapidly.  Just look at that blue line!
  • Assets and profit are growing, despite a massive increase in Salaries and Wages: from $26 Million in 2015... to $67.8 Million in 2021.

So.  Let's answer a burning question:

Q: Does Wikipedia desperately need your donations in order to continue operating?

A: No.  Not by a long-shot.  If donations dropped significantly, there would be no hit to Wikipedia operations.  Certainly not for quite some time.

When Wikipedia tells you they need your $5 donation to keep running?  They are lying to you.

In fact... this is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are also two unique financial entities, related to Wikimedia, that are... extremely strange: The Wikimedia Endowment and The Knowledge Equity Fund.

Let's take a look at those.

The Wikimedia Endowment

Back in 2016, The Wikimedia Foundation establed "The Wikimedia Endowment" -- with a goal of stockpiling $100 Million dollars worth of funding within the endowment.

So what is the stated goal of The Wikimedia Endowment? 

"The Wikimedia Endowment is our enduring commitment to a world of freely shared knowledge, now and in perpetuity."

Ok.  Vague.  But that tends to be the way with these sorts of foundations.

What sort of work actually gets funded by this Endowment?  According to their website... they only give a list of "select projects".  Not a complete list.  And we also don't have any details of how much this Endowment spends on any given project.

Source: wikimediaendowment.org

Not specific.  Not transparent.  No amounts given.  Or dates.  Or... much of anything.

But we do know that the Endowment has met its $100 Million funding goal (and still growing) as of 2021:

"as of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million ($99.33 million in an investment account and $6.07 million in cash), with an additional $8 million raised in December 2021 due to be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022."

Now... here's where The Wikimedia Endowment starts to get... weird.

From the time the Endowment was created, in 2016, to 2021... The Wikimedia Foundation deposited $5 Million dollars (of Wikipedia donations) into the Endowment.  Totalling $30 Million according to the most recent Wikimedia Foundation Audit.

Source: 2021 Audit

But... wait.  Wait.  Wait.

Two big questions crop up from that paragraph from the 2021 audit:

  1. If Wikimedia Foundation only contributed $30 Million (from user donations) to the Endowment... who contributed the rest of the money?  A company?  Rich benefactor?
  2. And what is this "Tides Foundation"?

Turns out, the benefactors of this Endowment are absolutely fascinating.

Source: Wikimedia Endowment Benefactors

You read that right.  George Soros.  Yes, that George Soros.  (Also Facebook & Google).

As for "The Tides Foundation", they run and manage the entire Wikimedia Endowment.  All $100+ Million of it.

Here is a very intereting bit, from Wikimedia:

"The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."

Go ahead.  Read that sentence again.

That Wikimedia Endowment money?  That 100 Million bucks?  Could go to "other charitable organisations".  What are those?  Who knows!  There's close to zero transparency about it.

Whoever the heck "Tides" is... they have an awful lot of power here when it comes to this "Wikimedia Endowment" money.  Let's go further.

What, exactly, is Tides?

This is what Wikipedia says about Tides (it seemed an approriate place to reference):

"Tides Foundation is an American public charity and fiscal sponsor working to advance progressive causes and policy initiatives"

Yep.  The Tides Foundation is a specifically political organization... for funding, organizating, and pushing specific political agendas.

Editorial Note: Here at The Lunduke Journal of Technology, we try our best to stay away from politics.  As such, we will not be discussing some of the many, and varied, political stances of The Tides Foundation in any detail here.  But, since Tides (and, as we will see, Wikimedia) are making pointed political statements and investments... The Lunduke Journal will be including those and letting you, the reader, make up your own mind about any political ramifications.

Is it strange that Wikipedia donations are being sent, by the Millions, to be handled by a political orgainzation?  Yes.  That is, most definitely, strange.  Considering Wikipedia has repeatedly stated the importantce of neutrality... incredibly so.

But it gets... even weirder.

Neither Wikimedia nor The Tides Foundation publish details about how those funds are being used.  It appears to be a secret.  But, considering what The Tides Foundation does, it is something political.  And only on one side of the political spectrum.  Not neutral, like Wikipedia says they must be.

And the ties between Tides and Wikimedia go way, way beyond just managing a hundred million dollars...

In 2019, The Wikimedia Foundation hired a new General Council.  Where did that person work in her previous job?  You guessed it.  The Tides Foundation.  Seriously.

What do we know?

  • The Tides Foundation manages and runs all $100+ Million of the Wikimedia Endowment.
  • Donations to Wikipedia paid for roughly $30 Million of that Endowment (with the remainder coming from unknown sources).
  • The Tides Foundation exclusively does political work for one part of the political spectrum.
  • The connections between Wikimedia and Tides run deep.
  • Neither Tides, nor Wikimedia, have published how that money is being used.

Which brings us to yet another area where Wikimedia is investing Wikipedia donations... in ways that are extremely political.

Once again: The Lunduke Journal of Technology is not going to tell anyone what they should think about any particular political views.  The official stance of The Lunduke Journal is that extreme politics -- of any kind -- tend to not be a positive force in the running of software and other computing projects.

Knowledge Equity Fund

Let's talk about one more way that Wikipedia donations are spent.  This concerns a much smaller amount of funds than we previously talked about with the Endowment... but the stated goals around it warrant documenting.

According to Wikimedia:

The "Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund" is a US $4.5 million fund created by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2020, to provide grants to external organizations that support knowledge equity by addressing the racial inequities preventing access and participation in free knowledge.

Here are some quotes, from the same Wikimedia page, to provide clarity around their goals:

"The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from US and Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege"

 

"Racial equity aims to promote ... non-White, non-US ... communities"

Whatever your thoughts around any of those statements, it should be noted that Wikimedia is spending $4.5 Million dollars worth of Wikipedia donations to further those goals.  Money that is not being spent on running Wikipedia.

In fact... it is worth noting that the dollar figure being allocated towards this "Knowledge Equity Fund" is twice the size of the yearly Server Hosting costs for all of Wikipedia.

What does all this mean?

Regardless of what any of us think about the specific political spending of Wikimedia, one thing is crystal clear:

A significant portion of donations -- solicited for the stated purpose of the running of Wikipedia -- are being spent furthing political goals.  Not on running Wikipedia.  All while Wikipedia is claiming to be barely surviving.

And Wikimedia is getting rich in the process.


Like this type of 100% independent Tech reporting?  Be sure to subscribe to Lunduke.Locals.com.  Even a free account is a good idea.

Here are a few other articles you might also find interesting:

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
13
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Internet Archive Takes Another Step Towards Death

Archive.org loses appeal in book copyright case with the Sony / Universal Music lawsuit still looming on the horizon.

The Internet Archive Loses Appeal. As Expected.
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6079435/the-internet-archive-loses-appeal-as-expected

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:30:58
Pop!_OS Lead: Linux Developers are “Patronizing Pedantic Megalomaniacs”

System76’s Principal Engineer doesn’t “even try to contribute to the Linux kernel anymore.”

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6052448/pop-os-lead-linux-developers-are-patronizing-pedantic-megalomaniacs

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:22:45
Zuck Regrets Censoring Facebook at Request of Democrats

"The White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire."

Warning: This show is extremely political. It has to be. There simply is no way to discuss the topic without being political. Just the same, the core of the topic is regarding the usability of digital, online publishing and messaging platforms -- a topic near and dear to the heart of those of us who have lived through the ages of the BBS, Usenet, Geocities, and the like.

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:40:29
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

Well, it's not like we didn't see THIS coming from a mile away:

https://www.boredpanda.com/family-poisoned-ai-generated-mushroom-identification-book/

What's especially fascinating, is that this article itself sounds like it was partially written by cobbling together the responses to several AI prompts:

post photo preview

Hyprland 0.43.0 is out.

Looks like there are a lot of developers working on dozens of bugs and features. It is impressive the team of ordinary developers this project has attracted. That said, it is impossible to summarize such a large list of updates, fixes, and new features. So, here are a couple categories of updates and fixes:

  • Keyboard control,
  • command line apps,
  • tiling windows in a multi screen and resolution environment, and
  • Wayland / X compatibility.

This list is extensive, and I can't wait to test it out. If you're a fan or just curious, it might be time to get the Hyprland ecosystem a spin.

https://github.com/hyprwm/Hyprland/releases/tag/v0.43.0

I purchased this last night. It's absolutely fascinating. The author is a neuroscientist and uses the process of learning to play the banjo as the major example, but the applications are really limitless. Learn to code, learn to be a woodworker, whatever.

I'm about 1/5 through it, and I've been rereading quite a bit of it. I'll probably go back to the beginning and read it again once I've finished "skimming" it. From a personal perspective, he really nails some of the roadblocks I encountered while learning to play the tuba and electric bass.

Y'all should check it out. And no, it's not on archive.org....

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-laws-of-brainjo-the-art-science-of-molding-a-musical-mind

post photo preview
September 07, 2024
post photo preview
Funny Programming Pictures Part LIV
The Roman Numerals makes ‘em fancy.

Fun fact: I hit CTRL-C at least 7 times when copying each of these pictures.

You know.  Just to be sure.

You're welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read full Article
September 04, 2024
post photo preview
Mount a drive image from a remote server... on DOS.
Want your D:\ to point to an image running on a Linux box across the world? Yeah, you do.

I'm a sucker for software which makes aging operating systems more useful.  As such, I am absolutely enamored with a new DOS utiltity called "mTCP NetDrive".

What is NetDrive?

"NetDrive is a DOS device driver that allows you to access a remote disk image hosted by another machine as though it was a local device with an assigned drive letter. The remote disk image can be a floppy disk image or a hard drive image."

Yeah.  Mount -- read and write -- a drive image remotely (anywhere in the world).  From DOS.

 

 

mTCP -- a suite of networking tools for DOS (like Ping, a DHCP client, an FTP client, etc.) -- has been around for a long time.  The developer, Michael Brutman, has truly done a phenomenal job building and mainting all of those tools.

But NetDrive really turns things up to 11.

  • You can place disk image on a server (remote or local) and mount it from any DOS machine.  The whole thing uses UDP.
  • The DOS driver uses less than 6 KB of RAM.  Keeping driver overhead low on DOS machines is important.
  • The drive images are simple raw disk images -- which means we can mount and manipulate them easily.
  • You can even mount multiple images at once -- from multiple different servers.

Oh!  The server is a lightweight application that runs (with no need for root access) on Linux or Windows.  Want to host your DOS images on a Raspberry Pi?  Yes.  You do.

 

 

What's more, the local DOS system simply recognizes the mounted drive as a standard hard drive (mounted as a configurable drive letter).  Which means that just about any software should work on it without difficulty.

Even disk management and optimization tools, like Norton Utilities, work fantastically.

 

 

As you can imagine, using NetDrive over the Internet can get a bit pokey.  Especially on a less-than-speedy connection.  But over a local network?  The darn thing runs at a very usable speed.

And -- even with potential speed issues when running on a remote server -- I absolutely love the idea of having a set of DOS drive images which I can mount from anywhere.  Heck.  I could even share some of those images with friends -- to use as a sort of DOS repository.

The developer has even added features like "undo" and "checkpoints" to make it easy to roll back "woopsies".  On a DOS drive image.  Mounted on a remote server.

Come on.

That's just nifty.

Read full Article
September 05, 2024
post photo preview
The Internet Archive Loses Appeal. As Expected.
With more legal action on the horizon, how long before Archive.org closes?

The United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) just issued a ruling against the Internet Archive (Archive.org) -- rejecting their appeal, and upholding a previous ruling against them in the Hachette vs Internet Archive legal battle.

Make no mistake: This is very bad news for both the Internet Archive, Archive.org users, as well as other archival projects.

 

 

 

Hachette v. Internet Archive: The Short, Short Version

 

To make sure everyone is up to speed, here is the short, short version of this legal battle.

For many years, the Internet Archive has been creating digital copies of physical books (by scanning them) -- then allowing people to "borrow" those digital versions from Archive.org (in theory limiting the total digital books being "lent out" to the count of the physical books in the Archive's possession).

They never obtained permissions from the authors or publishers to do any of this.

In 2020, during the Covid lockdowns, the Internet Archive launched the "National Emergency Library" -- where they removed that "1 physical book : 1 digital book lent out" restriction.  Meaning anybody on the Internet could obtain digital scans of physical books... and the Archive could "Lend Out" an unlimited number of digital copies based on a single physical copy.

Again.  No permission was obtained from the writers or publishers.

Thus -- to the surprise of absolutely nobody -- the "Hachette v. Internet Archive" legal battle began.

And... The Internet Archive lost.  The judge ruled in favor of the publishers (including Hachette, Wiley, Penguin Random House, & HarperCollins).

Naturally, Internet Archive appealed that ruling.  But, boy-howdy, was their appeal a strange one which was destined to fail.

 

The Strange Appeal of The Internet Archive

 

On April 19th of 2024, the Internet Archive filed their final brief in their attempt to appeal this ruling against them.

In that ruling, one of the Internet Archive's core arguments was that it cost the Internet Archive a lot of money to make so many digital copies of books without permission... so, therefore, the Internet Archive should be allowed to do it.

That is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.  It sounds weird, because it is weird.

The Internet Archive truly attempted to make the case that spending a lot of money committing a crime... should make that crime legal.  (Could you imagine the mafia making that case?  Wild.)

You can read the full analysis, by The Lunduke Journal, of the appeal (including the appeal itself) for yourself for more details.

The reality is... there was never any chance that the Internet Archive's attempted appeal was going to be successful.  Their defensive arguments were highly illogical (bordering on flights of fancy), and brought nothing new or noteworthy to the case.  This was all painfully obvious.

 

The Lost Appeal

 

On Wednesday, September 4th, 2024, the opinion was handed down from the United States Court of Appeals.

While the full ruling is roughly 64 pages long, this single paragraph -- from the second page -- summarizes things quite well:

 

"This appeal presents the following question: Is it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no. We therefore AFFIRM."

 

To call out the truly important parts:

"Question: Is it 'fair use' ... to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free ... all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? ... we conclude the answer is no."

You can read the entire 64 page ruling for yourself.  Heck.  You can even read it on Archive.org.  But that line, right there, sums it all up.

Naturally, the Internet Archive has issued a statement.  Albeit... a short one.

 

"We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere. We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books."

 

What Happens Now?

 

The Internet Archive gets sued by some of the biggest book publishers... and loses.

The Internet Archive appeals... and loses.

What happens next?  Well.  Unfortunately -- for both the Internet Archive, and its users -- the future looks rather bleak.

First and foremost: Has the Internet Archive made, and distributed, digital copies of work you own?  This ruling will certainly not hurt your case should you decide to take legal action against Archive.org.

And -- holy smokes -- the amount of copyrighted material on Archive.org is absolutely massive.

The Archive.org software repository alone contains millions of items.  With a very large number of them being copyrighted material, posted there without permission of the copyright owner.

Simply going by the numbers, here's how much material is available on Archive.org (roughly):

  • 832 Billion archived webpages.
  • 38 Million printed materials (magazines, books, etc.).
  • 2.6 Million pieces of software
  • 11.6 Million videos files.
  • 15 Million audio files.
  • 4.7 Million images.

How many of those items do you think are there without permission (or possibly even knowledge) of the owners or creators?

Every single one now has an increasingly strong case when looking at potential legal action.

And it's about to get even worse for the Internet Archive.

 

UMG Recordings v. Internet Archive

 

That's right, the book publishers weren't the only ones taking legal action against Archive.org. 

Universal Music Group and Sony have an ongoing lawsuit against the Internet Archive -- regarding the distribution of 2,749 audio recordings (with potential damages upwards of $412 Million USD).

Seriously.

 

"Plaintiffs bring this suit to address Defendants’ massive ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights in protected pre-1972 sound recordings. As part of what Defendants have dubbed the “Great 78 Project,” Internet Archive, Blood, and GBLP have willfully reproduced thousands of Plaintiffs’ protected sound recordings without authorization by copying physical records into digital files. Internet Archive then willfully uploaded, distributed, and digitally transmitted those illegally copied sound recordings millions of times from Internet Archive’s website."

 

Sound familiar?  Digital copies.  No permission from the artists or publishers.  Free downloads for everyone.

Naturally, the Internet Archive attempted to have this suit dismissed... but their attempt was denied in May of 2024.  (Because if there's one constant in life... it's that the Internet Archive always loses in court.)  That case is going forward.

 

 

What happens if the Internet Archive loses this UMG / Sony case?  What happens if they are ordered to pay $412 Million in damages?

To put it simply: Archive.org doesn't have that kind of money.  They bring in roughly $20 Million (give or take) per year.  That type of legal liability would absolutely destroy the Internet Archive.

 

 

And, here's the thing, the Internet Archive is almost assuredly going to lose that lawsuit as well.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks of the Internet Archive -- and, make no mistake, I use that service several times a week (and love it) -- the law here is incredibly clear and well tested.

The Internet Archive runs one of the largest (if not the largest) website of pirated and stolen digital material on the planet.  Sure, it may also provide extremely valuable (and often, very legal) services as well.. but that doesn't make those crimes go away.

With each legal defeat, the Internet Archive grows increasingly vulnerable to additional attacks.

Simply being logical about it... it seems highly likely that we'll see additional suits brought against the Internet Archive in the months ahead.  Books, music, TV shows, software... Archive.org contains a massive mountain of copyrighted material in all areas.  These are suits which the Internet Archive would be almost certain to lose.

With this reality looming, how long until Archive.org will be forced to shut down entirely?  That day is likely not far off... and a sad day it will be.

 

The Archive Had to Know This Was Coming

 

The truly sad part?  The leadership of the Internet Archive had to know exactly what they were doing.

Every step of the way, it was obvious that they were going to lock horns with publishers (and lose).

Heck, I told them.  Repeatedly.

But, even if The Lunduke Journal hadn't pointed this out... it was a brutally obvious certainty to anyone even mildly familiar with copyright law and the workings of Archive.org.

Which means: The Internet Archive knowingly put their entire service at risk (including the Wayback Machine, the massive archive or pre-copyright audio recordings, etc.) because they wanted to publish copyrighted material against the wishes of the authors or publishers.

Despite this, they continue to push a public perception campaign where they pretend that publishers and authors are burning their own books.  When the reality is... the books are still available a wide variety of ways.  Archive.org simply got in trouble for copying and distributing them without permission.

 

 

Something I find truly fascinating about all of this, is that The Lunduke Journal will -- as usual -- get yelled at (rather extensively) for this article.  For simply pointing out the current reality of copyright law and how the Internet Archive has, knowingly, violated it.

People love Archive.org.  Heck, I love Archive.org.

And people are allowing their love for that website to convince them that anyone being critical of it... must, necessarily, be bad and evil.  An enemy.

But it is not The Lunduke Journal who is putting The Internet Archive in danger of being shut down.

Neither is it Sony, Hachette, Random House, or HarperCollins who are putting The Internet Archive in danger.

No, sir.

The only one putting The Internet Archive in danger... is The Internet Archive.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals