Nowadays, everybody knows the name “Firefox.”

Utter that name, and nearly every computer user will instantly know you are talking about the web browser from Mozilla Corporation… even if Firefox market share has dropped down to less than 3%.

But did you know that Firefox was not originally named “Firefox”?

In fact… the Mozilla Web Browser settled on that name through a series of bad decisions, bullying of another open source project, and a game of word association.

Seriously. You wouldn’t think it… but it’s kind of a wild story.

Before Mozilla had a browser

Our story starts back in 1998…

The source code for Netscape, once the most popular web browser in the world, had just been released as open source under “The Mozilla Project.”

And, over the few years that followed (funded by AOL Time Warner), several web browsers were created which used that core Mozilla code. Web browsers that, for the most part, have long been forgotten.

Web Browsers such as Galeon, K-Meleon, QBAT.i, and SkipStone. Many browsers, for many platforms… all built using the core Mozilla web rendering engine. Yet there was no official “Mozilla” web browser.

By 2002 it was determined that needed to change.

Enter the Phoenix

On September 23rd, 2002, the very first release of the official Mozilla web browser hit the Internet.

Version 0.1 of… “Phoenix”.

Phoenix! A fantastic name! So much symbolism!

A new web browser, rising from the ashes of Netscape (which appeared to be losing the browser war to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer). An inspired choice.

There was just one teensy-weensy little problem: There was already a web browser with that name.

“Phoenix FirstWare Connect” was a web browser, developed by Phoenix Technologies, that ran entirely in their BIOS (without need for an operating system).

That’s right. Mozilla, the people who spent years building web browser rendering engines, had no idea there was already a browser named “Phoenix” when they chose the name. If only there had been some sort of engine they could have used to search the Web.

*cough cough*

Phoenix Technologies didn’t much care for Mozilla using their name. Obviously.

Either Mozilla needed to change their name… or buckle down for a legal fight they were sure to lose. Mozilla may have had the backing of AOL Time Warner… but Phoenix Technologies was big enough (and with a strong enough case) to take them on.

Synonyms to the rescue!

Luckily, someone at Mozilla managed to get ahold of an encyclopedia (or possibly a really good thesaurus) and found another word that was often used in place of “Phoenix.”

On May 17, 2003 the Phoenix browser was renamed… to Firebird.

This was incredibly handy… as Mozilla didn’t even need to change the logo! The big, red, flame-y bird could stay! Huzzah!

And, this time around, the Mozilla team learned to use a Search Engine to see if another web browser already had the same name! Smart!

… Unfortunately, it turns out there was already another open source project, sponsored by a different company, using the “Firebird” name: The Firebird Database Server.

But -- and here's the wild part -- Mozilla simply didn’t care.

They decided to adopt the name of the exiting project anyway. They didn’t even contact the other project first. Because they were Mozilla… a part of AOL Time Warner… and they didn’t feel like they needed to do such things.

Mozilla the bully

Having two open source projects — both running on the same computer platforms — using the exact same name and very similar imagery… is not ideal. To say the least.

Especially for the smaller project that came first.... Firebird Database Server.

Having a new project copy your name, then plaster the Internet with links to their new project, all backed by AOL? It would become almost impossible to find information about the original project!

This was, obviously, a fight worth having. The “Firebird Database Server” folks needed to defend their trademark… almost as a matter of survival.

Unfortunately…

• Mozilla was part of AOL Time Warner. A huge, mega corporation with a vast army of lawyers.

• The company that sponsored “Firebird Database Server”, was a little company called “IBPhoenix” with a limited budget. And, what’s worse, no army of lawyers.

Mozilla was an 800 pound gorilla, and “IBPhoenix / Firebird Database” simply was too small to be able to afford a fight with the likes of AOL Time Warner.

Obviously, IBPhoenix asked Mozilla to not use their name… but to no avail.

After Mozilla refused to change their name, IBPhoenix did the only thing they could think of… they pleaded with their developers and users to email Mozilla, and ask Mozilla to stop using their name.

Mozilla, again, refused. “We're still going to use the project name Mozilla Firebird,” stated a Mozilla representative in an interview where they attacked the database maker.

The public was beginning to see what a bully Mozilla could be.

Things were not going well for Mozilla at this point. Users were beginning to boycott the Mozilla browser, and the bad press was getting severe with headlines like "Phoenix flies from frying pan to fire" and "Mozilla's Firebird gets wings clipped".

Then Mozilla plays word association

After nearly a full year of Mozilla using the “Firebird” name — knowingly harming the “Firebird Database Server” the entire time — Mozilla finally caved to the public pressure to change the name of their web browser.

On February 9, 2004, the name for the Mozilla web browser officially changed to “Firefox” with the release of the 0.8 version.

Why did the name become “Firefox”?  Because it sounded similar to “Firebird.”

Seriously. “Firefox” is a name for a panda… which had absolutely nothing to do with a “Phoenix” or “Firebird”… but it had “Fire” in it… so it was good enough!

Well, that and Mozilla felt like there couldn’t possibly be any software company, product, or project with that name. The Mozilla leadership was pretty keen on avoiding yet another trademark dispute before their web browser had even reached version 1.0.

Mozilla even made sure to register “Firefox” as a Trademark in the USA. Phew! They learned their lesson!

Well. Almost.

They forgot about the United Kingdom

While the Mozilla leadership felt like the name “Firefox” must be totally unique in the software world… it really, really wasn’t.

In fact, the name “Firefox” had been in use for almost a decade by a software company in the United Kingdom named The Charlton Company.

To make matters worse… the name “Firefox” was specifically being used for “communications and connectivity” software. Which is kinda-sorta-exactly how you would describe a web browser.

WOOPS!

This would be like a new company creating a carbonated soft drink named “Coke”… but thinking it was ok to use the already-in-use name… because… you know... they wanted to.

But, rather than get involved in yet another public fight over the third name they’ve chosen… Mozilla tried to settle things behind the scenes. Eventually, by some time in 2005, Mozilla reached a deal with the “Firefox” trademark holder to use the name.

What the terms of that deal are remains unknown.

Firefox it shall be!

So, there you have it! Mozilla went through three different names for their web browser — all before they even hit version 1.0.

• They completely failed to look around for others using their new name.  Multiple times.
• They bullied an open source project they stole a name from.
• Eventually they screwed up their renaming too many times and simply had to strike a deal with somone whose name they copied.

A wild tale of incompetence, bullying, and not knowing how to use a search engine.

Yet, after all of that, Firefox managed to become a nearly household name. A brand recognized around the world… even if less than 3% of computer users actually use it.

It's no secret that many Open Source organizations struggle to fund themselves -- with the GNOME Foundation being on more of a shoestring budget than you would expect for a project as widely used as GNOME.

To make matters worse, the GNOME Foundation has been paying for most of their expenses by draining their savings account (as they spend far more than they take in).

Now, apparently, those savings are running out.

What's more: The GNOME Foundation has been unusually silent about their operations -- not publishing any public reports for closing in on 2 years now.  And their strategy to save themselves from bankruptcy appears to center around "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Seriously.

GNOME has "hit the buffers"

From an April 26th announcement from GNOME Foundation President, Robert McQueen:

"As you may be aware, the GNOME Foundation has operated at a deficit (nonprofit speak for a loss – ie spending more than we’ve been raising each year) for over three years, essentially running the Foundation on reserves from some substantial donations received 4-5 years ago. The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts. This is so that if there is a significant interruption to our usual income, we can preserve our core operations while we work on new funding sources. We’ve now “hit the buffers” of this reserves policy, meaning the Board can’t approve any more deficit budgets – to keep spending at the same level we must increase our income."

In short: GNOME has run out of money.  In order to "keep spending at the same level" GNOME needs to find some money.

What sort of money are we talking about?

To fully understand the dire straits the GNOME Foundation finds itself in, let's take a look at what we know about their finances.

Unfortunately, the GNOME Foundation has not published any data in close to two years.  They have not published an annual report for 2023, and their most recent IRS records only cover their fiscal year up through September of 2022.

Which means we are forced to look at previous year's data and extrapolate forward based on what information we do have.

In short, total expenses for the GNOME Foundation:

• 2021: $926,821
• 2022: $659,537

And the revenue for those same years...

• 2021: $286,708
• 2022: $363,380

Notice how the expenses far exceed the revenue?  Not good.  Subtract the expenses from the revenue and you have the net income.  And, boy howdy, is it deep into the negative.  Which means this is the amount they need to take out of their savings, every year, just to keep the lights on.

• 2021: - $640,113
• 2022: - $296,157

We know that GNOME is burning through between $296K and $640K, of savings, per year.  Which begs the question... how much do they have left in terms of cash reserves?

The GNOME Foundation Nest Egg

The most recent information we have, on the GNOME assets, comes from their IRS filings up through September of 2022 (their last publicly available filing).

While those numbers don't exactly line up with the numbers stated in the GNOME Foundation's annual report, that's not entirely surprising.  Oftentimes, for these foundations, the annual reports and IRS filings will cover slightly different time periods (and be filed at different times, when different data is available).

Just the same, the numbers are close enough to the annual report that we can work with it.

But the listed assets on this page, as of 2022, really don't give us enough information.  This lists $909,107 in total net assets... but what we really need to know is how much "Savings and temporary cash investments" they have.

In other words: How much money can GNOME get their hands on, in short notice, to actively use for funding their immediate expenses?  For that, we'll need to look a few pages further down their IRS 990 form... at this line:

Boom.  There we go.  $765,011.

That's how much the GNOME Foundation had, in September of 2022, in available savings.

How much money does GNOME have left... today?

Now here's where we're going to need to make some assumptions based on the data above.

I hate making assumptions... but, considering the lack of data from the GNOME Foundation, we're left with no other choice.

Let's assume that, in 2023, GNOME managed to keep their annual expenditures down to their 2022 levels (which was far, far lower than the 2021 levels... so this is close to "best case scenario").  And let's also assume that their income stayed steady as well.  How much savings would they have left?

Math time.  Savings minus the amount they need to withdraw from savings.

• Oct, 2022 through Sep, 2023: $765,011 - $296,157 = $468,854

Now let's make the same assumption from that point (October 2023) through to present (April, 2024).  7 months in total.

We know that the total amount that GNOME would need to draw from their savings -- every month -- is roughly $24,679.75 ($296,157, the yearly savings withdrawal, divided by 12 months).  Thus, to get the amount of savings they've spent over the last 7 months... we simply multiply that number by 7.  For which we get $172,758.25.

• Oct, 2023 through Apr, 2024: $468,854 - $172,758.25 = $296,095.75

In theory, that's how much money the GNOME Foundation has left in savings.  $296,095.75.

Why is that number significant?  Because that is almost exactly the amount of savings they will need to withdraw to stay afloat... for one year.

Remember.  From the announcement this week: "The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts."

Could this be related to that number we came up with above?  It's possible.  It certainly would seem reasonable.  But, without better records and communication from the GNOME Foundation, we won't know for sure.

GNOME Foundation has One Year Left?

If their numbers have stayed consistent since September of 2022 -- which is a big if -- this means that The GNOME Foundation has enough funds to continue current operations through April of 2025.

At which point... the GNOME Foundation will need to significantly scale back their expenditures.

They will be forced to lay off the majority of their staff.

All of which raises a number of questions.

What is the new Executive Director doing to save GNOME?

In October of 2023, the GNOME Foundation hired a new Executive Director.  A person whose previous job was as a self-described "Professional Shaman" -- not religiously associated with Shamanism, mind you, but a person who sold "flavored Shaman water" and offered paid "Start your own Shaman business" training.

In the half year since that time, the new GNOME Executive Director, Holly Million, has had very little public presence -- no blog posts (after a short introduction), no social media activity, no major interviews, no response to press requests... totally quiet.  During the one publicly held event (a "Meet and Greet" last year), journalists were kicked out before it started and the planned recording was canceled for unknown reasons.

What has this GNOME Executive Director been doing to make sure that the GNOME Foundation does not go out of business?  It is a mystery.  Total silence.

In fact, one of the few indications we have as to the direction that the GNOME Foundation is taking, comes from Twitter posts by other GNOME Board members.  Namely, one from the GNOME Vice President, stating:

"excited about the progressive conversation we had with the executive director Holly Million. We engaged in extensive discussions regarding the strategic direction of @gnome, focusing on #sustainability, #diversity, and #inclusion. The future looks green"

From what little information we have, it appears that the GNOME profitability efforts are centered around "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Oh, and "Hashtag: Technology".  With a shamrock emoji.

"How does that result in GNOME not going out of business," you ask?  I wish I could tell you.

But, according to this week's announcement by the GNOME President, fundraising is one of the key reasons why Holly Million was hired away from her Shaman job.

"One of the board’s top priorities in hiring Holly was therefore her experience in communications and fundraising, and building broader and more diverse support for our mission and work. Her goals since joining – as well as building her familiarity with the community and project – have been to set up better financial controls and reporting, develop a strategic plan, and start fundraising."

Communications.  Fundraising.  Financial reporting.

That's why their Executive Director was hired -- and those were her goals since she started work over half a year ago.

In that time the GNOME Executive Director has:

• Given no interviews.
• Been totally radio silent (no articles, social posts, podcasts, videos... nothing).
• Not published any financial reports of any kind.  We have no clue what GNOME has been doing, financially, for almost 2 years now.
• And, from what little we're being told, she has continued GNOME's deathmarch towards running out of money.

Those goals again: Communications.  Fundraising.  Financial reporting.

Sounds like a massive, unmitigated failure of all three goals to me.  And their plan to turn things around sounds like it centers on "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion"... which is not exactly a strong business plan.

What happens now?

It sounds like things are getting desperate.  And the GNOME Foundation will be announcing their plan to save The GNOME Foundation in the weeks ahead.

"The biggest prerequisite for fundraising is a clear strategy – we need to explain what we’re doing and why it’s important, and use that to convince people to support our plans. I’m very pleased to report that Holly has been working hard on this and meeting with many stakeholders across the community, and has prepared a detailed and insightful five year strategic plan. The plan defines the areas where the Foundation will prioritise, develop and fund initiatives to support and grow the GNOME project and community. The board has approved a draft version of this plan, and over the coming weeks Holly and the Foundation team will be sharing this plan and running a consultation process to gather feedback input from GNOME foundation and community members."

What is that plan?  How likely is that plan to succeed in bringing in enough funding to keep the foundation float?

At this point, we simply don't know.  The GNOME Foundation -- and their Executive Director -- is staying tight lipped and secretive.

All we know is that it includes "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".

Wait.  What about that Million Euro investment?!

Right about now you might be remembering that, last year, the GNOME Foundation announced that they would be receiving 1 Million Euros from the Sovereign Tech Fund.

It sounds like those funds aren't for the foundation, but for specific development purposes:

"This money is received in the form of a contract for services rather than a grant to the Foundation, and must be spent on the development areas agreed during the planning and application process. It’s included within this year’s budget (October 23 – September 24) and is all expected to be spent during this fiscal year, so it doesn’t have an impact on the Foundation’s reserves position."

In other words: That million Euro?  It won't be beefing up their savings account.

What about Red Hat, SUSE, & Canonical?

GNOME is heavily relied upon by some of the biggest Linux companies on Earth.  

Right about now it's worth considering... why haven't Red Hat (or SUSE & Canonical, for that matter) stepped up to provide the needed funding for the foundation which supports their default Desktop Environment?

Maybe they can't.  Maybe they don't want to.  The reason for the lack of funding is entirely unknown.  But it's worth asking, just the same.

For that matter, where is The Linux Foundation?  This seems like exactly the sort of thing a "Linux" foundation -- with over a quarter of a Billion dollars in annual revenue -- could do to help "Linux".

This isn't the first time... but...

Is the GNOME Foundation poised to run out of money?  It certainly appears so.  And, clearly, the foundation leadership is concerned.

But this isn't the first time they've had money trouble.

Back in 2014 (10 years ago), there were serious concerns about the financials of the GNOME Foundation.  So much so that a spending freeze was put into place.

GNOME survived that 2014 financial dip, just as it could certainly survive this new one.  Yet the actions of the GNOME Foundation raises serious concerns and doubts.

• Why is GNOME staying so secretive?  No published plans, no communication at all from their Executive Director, no published recent reports.
• The only known details of their secret plan to avert a shut down are... "sustainability, diversity, and inclusion".  That can't be real... can it?  No serious software foundation would stare at possible bankruptcy... and make that a significant part of their strategy.
• What has the Executive Director been doing for half a year?  Why hasn't there been any noteworthy fundraising or sponsorships?  Considering GNOME's unique place in the Linux and Open Source world, funding GNOME should not be an issue for anyone even slightly familiar with fundraising and the Linux corporate world.
• Why have the large Linux & Open Source companies -- and The Linux Foundation -- not gotten involved?  What's going on there?

In the coming weeks, the GNOME Foundation has said that they will announce details of their secretive plan to keep their foundation alive.

For what it's worth, The Lunduke Journal is rooting for them -- and their secret plan.  Whatever it may be.  I truly hope it succeeds.

But, considering the bad financials and all of the other reasons outlined here, I remain less than optimistic.

Update: April 30th, 2024

While the GNOME Foundation has continued to refuse to speak with journalists, this article has created a bit of a firestorm within the GNOME community -- and has forced the GNOME Foundation President, Robert McQueen, to make a short statement.

That statement confirmed some of The Lunduke Journal's reporting regarding GNOME having 1 year of salary and expenses remaining:

"the reserves policy says we should keep 12 additional months of staff salary and expenses".

There were additional quotes, within that statement, which put a positive spin on the state of GNOME finances:

"The reason we’re hoping to raise more funds is our ambition to do more for the community"

 

"This year we’re expecting to break-even"

While these statements sound good, they are too vague and speculative to prove or disprove with the information we have available.  Likewise, they neither prove or disprove the reporting within this article (other than, at present, the GNOME Foundation is not breaking even).

What we now know for certain: GNOME been running a large deficit for several years, with their books showing a trajectory towards a fully depleted savings within 1 year unless they receive significant, new funding -- that fact has been confirmed by the GNOME Foundation.

The Lunduke Journal has, once again, reached out to the GNOME Foundation for further information.  However, given the foundation's lack of communication and transparency over the last 6 months, it seems unlikely that we'll know the true extent of the financial issues until we obtain updated financial records and annual reports (or until GNOME decides to publish their, at present, secret plans).

On April 19th, The Internet Archive filed the final brief in their appeal of the "Hachette v. Internet Archive" lawsuit (for which, judgment was handed down, against Internet Archive, last year).

What is curious, is that this final brief fails -- almost completely -- to reasonably address the core issues of the lawsuit.  What's more, the public statements that followed, by The Internet Archive, appeared to be crafted to drum up public sympathy by misrepresenting the core of the case itself.

Which suggests that The Internet Archive is very much aware that they are likely to lose this appeal.

After a careful reading of the existing public documents relating to this case... it truly is difficult to come to any other conclusion.

The Internet Archive does some critically important work by archiving, and indexing, a wide variety of culturally significant material (from webpages to decades old magazine articles).  In this work, they help to preserve history.  A extremely noble, and valuable, endeavor.  Which makes the likelihood of this legal defeat all the more unfortunate.

What is "Hachette v. Internet Archive"? 

Here's the short-short version of this lawsuit:

The Internet Archive created a program they called "Controlled Digital Lending" (CDL) -- where a physical book is scanned, turned into a digital file, and that digital file is then "loaned" out to people on the Internet.  In 2020, The Internet Archive removed what few restrictions existed with this Digital Lending program, allowing an unlimited number of people to download the digital copy of a book.

The result was a group of publishers filing the "Hachette v. Internet Archive" lawsuit.  That lawsuit focused on two key complaints:

1. The books were "digitized" (converted from physical to digital form) -- and distributed -- without the permission of the copyright holders (publishers, authors, etc.).
2. The Internet Archive received monetary donations (and other monetary rewards) as a result of freely distributing said copyrighted material.  Again, without permission of the copyright holders.  Effectively making the Internet Archive's CDL a commercial enterprise for the distribution of what is best described as "pirated material".

That lawsuit was decided, against The Internet Archive, in 2023 -- with the judge declaring that "no case or legal principle supports" their defense of "Fair Use".

That judgment was appealed by The Internet Archive.  Which brings us to today, and thier final defense (in theory).

What is the final defense of The Internet Archive?

Let's take a look at the final brief in The Internet Archive's bid to appeal this ruling.

The general defense of The Internet Archive is fairly simple: The Internet Archive's "Controlled Digital Lending" falls under "Fair Use".  And, therefor, is legal.

Let's look at two of the key arguments within the brief... and the issues with them.

Not "For Anyone to Read"

"Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read"

This argument -- part of the brief's Introduction -- is quite a strange defense to make.

The "Controlled Digital Lending" program, starting in March of 2020, literally posted a massive book archive "online for anyone to read".  This was branded the "National Emergency Library".

Good intentions aside, the Internet Archive is now attempting to claim that they did not do... the exact thing that they proudly did (they even issued press releases about how they did it).

As such, I don't see a judge being swayed by this (poorly thought out) argument.

"Because of the Huge Investment"

"... because of the huge investment required to operate a legally compliant controlled lending system and the controls defining the practice, finding fair use here would not trigger any of the doomsday consequences for rightsholders that Publishers and their amici claim to fear."

Did you follow that?

The argument here is roughly as follows:

"It costs a lot of money to make, and distribute, digital copies of books without the permission of the copyright holder...  therefore it should be legal for The Internet Archive to do it."

An absolutely fascinating defense.  "Someone else might not be able to commit this crime, so we should be allowed to do it" is one of the weirdest defences I have ever heard.

Again, I doubt the judge in this case is likely to be convinced by this logic.

There are many other arguments made within this final brief -- in total, 32 pages worth of arguments.  But none were any more convincing -- from a logical perspective -- than the two presented here.  In fact, most of the arguments tended to be entirely unrelated to the core lawsuit and judgment.

The Court of Public Opinion

Let's be honest: The Internet Archive looks destined to lose this court battle.  They lost once, and their appeal is, to put it mildly, weak.

Maybe you and I are on the side of The Internet Archive.  Maybe we are such big fans of Archive.org that we want to come to their defense.

But feelings don't matter here.  Only facts.  And the facts are simple.  The Archive's actions and statements (and questionable legal defense) have all but ensured a loss in this case.

So... what happens next?

What do you do when you have a profitable enterprise (bringing in between $20 and $30 million per year) that is on the verge of a potentially devastating legal ruling which could put you out of business?

Why, you turn to the court of public opinion, of course!

And you spin.  Spin, spin, spin.  Spin like the wind!

Here is a statement from Brewster Kahle, founder of The Internet Archive", who is working to frame this as a fight for the rights of Libraries:

"Resolving this should be easy—just sell ebooks to libraries so we can own, preserve and lend them to one person at a time. This is a battle for the soul of libraries in the digital age."

A battle for the soul of libraries!  Woah!  The soul?!

That's an intense statement -- clearly crafted to elicit an emotional response.  To whip people up.

But take another look at the rest of that statement.  The Internet Archive founder says that resolving this case "should be easy".  And he provides a simple, easy-to-follow solution:

"just sell ebooks to libraries so we can own, preserve and lend them to one person at a time"

Go ahead.  Read that again.  At first it makes total sense... until you realize that it has almost nothing to do with this specific case.

Let's ignore the "one person at a time" statement, which is a well established lie (the Internet Archive proudly distributed digital copies of physical books to anyone who wanted them, not "one at a time").

But take a look at this proposed resolution... note that it has very little to do with the actual case.  The case is about the digitizing of physical books, and distributing those digital copies without permission of the copyright holder.  This proposed resolution is about... selling eBooks to lenders.

Yes.  Both have to do with eBooks.  And, yes, both have to do with lending eBooks.

But that is where the similarities end.  And the differences, in this case, are absolutely critical.

Let's take a look at the actual ruling -- which The Internet Archive is attempting to appeal:

"At bottom, [the Internet Archive’s] fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book.  But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points the other direction."

The Internet Archive's publicly proposed resolution does not address this ruling at all.  Which means that, when talking to the public, The Internet Archive is being dishonest about this case.

But they are using flowery language -- "battle for the soul of libraries" -- so they'll likely manage to convince many people that they're telling the truth and representing the facts of the case fairly and honestly.  Even if they are not.

There Are Important Disagreements Here

None of which is to say that the points which The Internet Archive is making... are necessarily wrong.

From the announcement of their appeal, the Archive states the following:

"By restricting libraries’ ability to lend the books they own digitally, the publishers’ license-only business model and litigation strategies perpetuate inequality in access to knowledge."

While this statement is designed to evoke specific feelings and responses -- among specific political demographics (see: "perpetuate inequality") -- there is an underlying set of issues here that are worth thinking about.

• Is it important that libraries be able to lend official digital editions of books?
• Should publishers, authors, and other copyright holders be forced to supply digital versions of their written works to libraries?
• If digital works, borrowed from a library, are then copied and distributed more than the rights allow... who is ultimately responsible for that?  The library?  The creator of the software system which facilitated the lending?  Nobody at all?
• Should Libraries or Publishers be able to censor or modify digital works... or should a published digital work be maintained as it is at time of publication?  (This issue comes up a lot when talking about censorship and revisions of works.)

These are legitimate questions.  And, while the answers may appear obvious, there truly are distinct disagreements among publishers, authors, and libraries.

Some of these issues are raised by The Internet Archive, BattleForLibraries.com, and others.

But none of these questions -- not one -- are part of the ruling in "Hachette v. Internet Archive".

The question that has been answered in this case is simply:

• If you buy physical media (such as a book), can that media be digitized and distributed on the Internet (without authorization or notification of the copyright owner)?

And the answer is, thus far, a resounding... "No".

The Can of Worms

What happens if the judge chooses to uphold the existing judgment against The Internet Archive?

A number of things seems possible (with some seeming like a downright certainty).

• Publishers, authors, and copyright holders of works distributed by The Internet Archive may choose to seek damages.  Which could put The Internet Archive in a precarious financial position (to say the least).
• The Internet Archive may be forced to remove other content of questionable copyright.  Including software, video, and audio archives.
• Other archival projects may now come under increased scrutiny... thus making it riskier to archive and distribute various types of material.
• And, of course, The Internet Archive could attempt to appeal the case ever higher.  Which may be tricky.

Then again... The Internet Archive could win this appeal.

Unlikely.  But, hey, weirder things have happened.