Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
A lost lawsuit, a flimsy appeal, and misleading public statements... things aren't looking good for the Internet's archivist.
April 24, 2024
post photo preview

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.

In true Internet Archive form, a PDF of the final brief in their appeal has been posted to Archive.org.

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.

The "Battle for Libraries" campaign

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.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
16
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
October 21, 2025
Oregon State University Teaches "White Rage" as Computer Science

OSU's Computer Science program — which had a $1 Million Dollar grant for "Gender-Inclusive Open Source" — teaches about "White Supremacy" and "Reparations" instead of programming.

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

00:09:23
October 21, 2025
F-Droid Says The Bible is Safe For Work... for Now

The story of the F-Droid Android App Store listing The Bible as NSFW ("Promotes Pornography" ) continues as developers de-list their Apps from F-Droid & Code of Conduct shenanigans.

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

00:17:20
October 20, 2025
Omarchy Linux Hits 150,000 Installs This Month Alone

"Nazi! Fascist! Hitler Particles!" The Leftist Extremists of Open Source have been attacking DHH's Omarchy Linux non-stop. The result? Massive adoption from normal people.

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

00:11:32
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

I Want to Try a "Re-Frame" of Identifying Tech Problems....

Poll: Is "Executive Narcissism" the Primary Factor in Current IT Failures?

For example: Windows 11 and the AWS Outage... and RUST Broke CoreUtils.
👨‍🔧 To put it another way, the "Guys in the Trenches" absolutely, positively KNOW "That Is Not a Good Idea" (because someone tried it long ago, and the EPIC FAIL which happens 1-in-10000 is VERY Bad for the people who have to live with it).

Article: Amazon Brain Drain Finally Sent AWS Down the Spout
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/20/aws_outage_amazon_brain_drain_corey_quinn/

From December 2023 (a top tech leaving) Article:

Meme of the year

post photo preview

playing with gnome shell extensions, does anyone know how to get the cube sides to snap together to look like a cube... thanks in advance :)

post photo preview
October 15, 2025
post photo preview
The Unpublished Anti-Lunduke Hit-Piece
A Tech Journalist interviewed me for a hit-piece article. But the questions made them look bad, and they shelved the story. So I'm publishing their hit-piece for them.

Back in September, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I was contacted by a Tech Journalist writing for FossForce.com (a smaller, Open Source focused publication) who was working on an article around Open Source, Antifa, and the Lunduke Journal’s coverage of those topics.

This particular outlet had, several months prior, run an “anti-Lunduke” hit piece without first reaching out for comment — which resulted in their most popular article (at least on social media) in quite some time.

With that in mind, it seemed reasonable that they’d want to repeat that success with another “anti-Lunduke” story.

This time they were doing the responsible thing. They reached out to the subject of the hit-piece article with questions. I like encouraging Tech Journalists when they do actual journalism, so I answered each and every query with easy-to-quote responses.

But, it would appear that the answers they received were not conducive to creating the hit-piece they were hoping for — my guess is they realized their questions made them look like the villain in the story. The villain they, clearly, hoped to portray me as.

They opted to not publish the piece.

So I’m publishing their hit-piece for them.

Below is every question — and every answer (with no edits) — which I was asked, on September 19th, by a Tech Journalist by the name of Christine Hall, writing for FossForce.

Fair warning: This is very, very politically charged.

Enjoy.


September 19th

Hall:

The last time I mentioned you in an article, you castigated me for not reaching out to you beforehand. Well, I’m reaching out now. We’ll see what comes of this.

You do recognize that the vast majority of organizations using the term antifa as a descriptor are not in the least bit terrorist and pose no threat to society -- and indeed, the only threats they might pose to fascist groups are not physical or life-harming?

Lunduke:

Hello Christine! Nice to hear from you!

Many, if not most, of those proclaiming support for Antifa (within Open Source) have also made statements encouraging or supporting violence and discrimination.

Regardless of that fact -- which I have documented extensively in Lunduke Journal coverage -- when violent acts are committed (such as murder, riots, and lynchings) in the name of “Antifa”, to turn around and immediately declare yourself to be “Antifa” is a clear declaration of support of that violence.

Hall:

And why did you feel it necessary to call out Danielle Foré’s [the founder of the elementary OS Linux Distribution] trans status in such an ugly manner?

Lunduke:

There is a noteworthy overlap between “Trans activism” and support for political violence -- including in the recent murder of Charlie Kirk (the murderer’s boyfriend was “Trans”).

In the case of Daniel Fore, he, a leader of an Open Source project, regularly calls for discrimination (and violence) against people he disagrees with -- often in conjunction with his self-declaration as “Trans”.

Thus, his declaration of being “Trans” becomes a part of the overall story.

It is worth noting here that The Lunduke Journal has never -- and would never -- call for discrimination or violence against someone because of how they identify or who they may (or may not) vote for.

This is in stark contrast those, such as Mr. Fore, who consider themselves “Trans” or “Antifa” -- who actively advocate for both discrimination and violence.

Hall:

Mentioning a person’s trans status in ways that are pertinent to your argument necessates rudeness such as calling her a “dude who likes to wear dresses”?

Lunduke:

Dan Fore is, in fact, a dude who likes to wear dresses.

The only reason to view that as a negative is if you view dudes wearing dresses as a negative.

Hall:

I’ll quote you on that, which I’m pretty sure won’t bother you in the least.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Quote anything I say here. In fact, I suggest quoting absolutely everything I’ve written to you here, today.

Hall:

You also understand, don’t you, that voicing disagreement with an assessment made by POTUS is not only legal but a healthy part of the national dialog.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Did I say somewhere that it was illegal to disagree with a politician? It seems unlikely that I have ever said that.

Hall:

Also, how would you reply to this:

There have been very few murders linked to individuals associated with Antifa, some incidents of rioting attributed to Antifa supporters, and no credible evidence of lynchings conducted in the name of Antifa. Compared to far-right groups, violence attributed to Antifa is much less frequent and lethal, with only one suspected kill—Aaron Danielson in Portland, by an anti-fascist activist—officially confirmed in recent U.S. history.

Lunduke:

Murder is bad. I am opposed to all murder.

In the context of these discussions, bearing in mind the Kirk murder is important (as many statements were made in response to it). The murderer of Kirk appears to have been pro-Trans and pro-Antifa (based on all available information).

Hall:

Is there any evidence that the suspect was part of an antifa group? I haven’t seen any.

Lunduke:

I have seen some reporting to this effect (including statements from family and messages he wrote).

But, far more important to this story, is the response to the murder among Antifa supporters (including those within Open Source). A large portion of Antifa supporters have celebrated the murder as justified because it killed someone they considered to be a “fascist”.

Hall:

Also, no group should be held responsible for what some deranged person who identifies with the group has done.

Lunduke:

I agree that a broader group should not be held responsible for the actions of a small number of individuals.

However, and this is critically important, it is entirely appropriate to hold people responsible for their own statements and actions.

With that in mind: The overall messaging of Antifa (and Antifa supporters) tends heavily towards violence. Punching, killing, molotov cocktails, etc. are all common messaging used by Antifa (including by those I quote within the Open Source world -- many of whom have advocated violence against myself).

Advocating for violence, then celebrating when violence is committed, are not good things.

Yet we see a great deal of that among Open Source supporters of Antifa.

Read full Article
October 13, 2025
Sale ends in a few hours, Lifetime Subs set up.

Holy moly, you guys are amazing.

A few days ago I published a “50% off” sale for Lunduke Journal subscriptions… and all of you showed up. In a big way.

To everyone who grabbed a Lifetime Subscription over the last few days: All of you are set to full Lifetime access. You should have a confirmation email in your inbox. If not, email me and I’ll make sure you’re setup properly.

That “50% off” sale ends tonight at midnight. So you have a few hours to snag a discounted subscription, if you haven’t already.

A huge thank you to everyone who supports this work. Couldn’t do it without you.

-Lunduke

Read full Article
October 12, 2025
50% Off Lunduke Journal Extended Through Monday (Oct 13th)

Just a quick heads up:

The “50% off every kind of Subscription to The Lunduke Journal” sale has been extended through Monday (October 13th).

So. You know. Grab one at 50% off between now and end of the day on Monday.

To all of you amazing nerds who have picked up a Lifetime Subscription already this weekend: You are awesome. You’ll be receiving a confirmation email, with all of the Lifetime Subscription details, by tomorrow (if you haven’t already).

Oh, and remember how we hit 11 Million views last month? Yeah. We’re well on our way to blowing past those numbers in October.

Wild.

See you all on Monday!

-Lunduke

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