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

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 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,, 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
What else you may like…
End of the Internet? Dead Internet Theory + Disappearing Content = Rut Roh

The Internet is mostly made by AI... but that's ok, it's all being deleted anyway.

The Future of Computing: A.I. and Advocacy. ...Seriously?

Microsoft, Firefox maker Mozilla, & Red Hat envision a future where computers are focused on Artificial Intelligence & Political Advocacy (and Activism). Where do others, like Apple & Ubuntu, stand?

The Open Source Community is Neither "Open" nor a "Community"

Other words that don't describe the Open Source World: Free, Democracy, Welcoming, Inclusive, Honest.

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:

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?

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 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

News fast update!

Last weekend, on what was pretty much a dare, I decided to not look at any "news" for the week. I signed out of all social media, except for FB and Discord. I'm in a couple motorcycle groups on FB that revolve around the Mid-Atlantic Backcountry Discovery Route. I just looked at that, and didn't even load up the main feed. Discord just for chat, though I even kept that to a minimum. I didn't click through anything that even remotely looked like news. I didn't go to Slashdot or CNN or Fox or the orange site, any of it. I skipped the current affairs people I follow on Youtube.

I didn't watch or read any of Bryan's new stuff. Heck, the only time I even signed into Locals was when I accidentally fired up the Android app, which I promptly closed. (I was trying to open my banking app and it's right beside Locals.)

In other words, I currently don't have a clue about anything. I see there's a new Q&A. I'ma go watch it now.

Going forward, I think a lot of what I...

post photo preview
post photo preview
post photo preview
Last week at The Lunduke Journal (May 19 - May 25, 2024)
Open Source! The Future of Computing! The End of the Internet! Yowza, what a week!

We tackled some pretty big topics last week!  The nature of "The Open Source Community", the future of computing (according to "the powers that be"), and the... end of the Internet?  Yikes.  Intense stuff!

Luckily, we ended the week with various nerdy goofiness.  You know.  To cleanse the palate.

Oh!  Have I thanked all of The Lunduke Journal subscribers yet today?  No?  Well, gosh darn it, I should!  You amazing nerds make all of this possible.

The Videos

The Articles

Previous Few Weeks

And, would you look at that?  A new week is about to begin!  If the past is a good indictor of the future... better buckle up, Buttercup!  This next week is gonna be a fun ride!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Instantly Become an Elite Movie Hacker
(with 3 simple tools)

Feeling lazy?  Want anyone who happens to walk past your computer screen to think you are incredibly busy writing — or compiling — a mountain of code?

Filming a movie about a squad of elite hackers and need the computer screens to... you know... look the part?

Or, heck, are you just a bit bored and want to make your computer do something funky looking?

Whichever situation you find yourself in, here are three different tools that will make your computer appear like it is hard at work doing some seriously elite hacking and coding.

1 - Genact

Genact is described as a “nonsense activity generator”. And boy does it do its job well.

Pretend to be busy or waiting for your computer when you should actually be doing real work! Impress people with your insane multitasking skills. Just open a few instances of Genact and watch the show. Genact has multiple scenes that pretend to be doing something exciting or useful when in reality nothing is happening at all.

Runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac… and creates screens like this:



Memory Dumping!



Genact has a whole boatload of different modules to help you pretend to do a bunch of different things: Mining crypto, handling docker images, compiling kernels, viewing logs… it’s all here.

2 - Hollywood

Hollywood is a Linux-only option, and it looks oh-so-cool. It runs in a terminal, and opens up a whole bunch of different applications (mostly real performance and network monitoring tools) each of which displays constantly updating bits of information.

The whole point is to make your computer look super busy… and super hacker-y. Just like in a movie.

In fact, Hollywood looks so good that it’s been used in multiple TV shows.

For example, here it is in a segment for NBC Nightly News:

So much elite hacker-y-ness!

Yeah. The news. A fake “make your computer look like it’s hacking something” application. On the news. If that’s not a great representation of the sorry state of TV News, I don’t know what is.

Just for the sake of completeness… here’s a shot of two investigators -- from that news report -- pointing to the random, gibberish output of Hollywood… and pretending like it’s super fascinating, real data that is somehow relevant to the news segment.

"Hmm.  Yes.  My elite hacker brain is thinking about this very real hacker stuff on this computer screen.  Look!  Right there!  Hacker stuff!"

That is, I kid you not, absolutely real.  This was on the news.

And here’s Hollywood in a sketch on Saturday Night Live:

"Don't interrupt me!  Can't you see I'm hacking!"

Seriously.  Hollywood is tons of fun to play with.  Even if you're not filming a news report.

3 - is a bit different than the other ones.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Open up

  2. Start hitting keys on the keyboard. Any keys at all. Doesn’t matter.

  3. Perfectly formatted C code appears on the screen!

Alloc's and Struct's and Int's!  Huzzah!

Now you can write code just like actors in the movies! Just sit back and pound away at your keyboard -- like a deranged, drunken monkey -- with complete disregard for what keys you’re actually pressing!

Whichever of these three options you choose -- HackerTyper, Hollywood, or Genact -- you are now fully equiped to become the most elitest of elite movie hackers.  (You're even ready to be on the evening news.)

Read full Article
post photo preview
Funny Programming Pictures Part XLI
That's, like, 41 in normal, non-fancy numbers.

Behold!  Pictures... from... the Internet!


Dangit, Bilbo!  Knock it off!


I would... still apply the .gitignore rules.  ... right?  I think?


HTTP jokes are all the rage these days.


According to every PM and Scrum Master I've ever worked with, this is true.


False.  Five months.


The Amazon Shareholders would like to thank you for your contribution.


It's totally normal for the value of a currency to fluxuate by 10% every day.  At random.  Wink wink.


You think a measly garage door is going to stop Flanders from asking you about LLM's?


Ok.  This one's not about programming or computers.  But.  You know.  Think about it.


This comic is highly misleading.  In real life, the "issues" bag is roughly twice the size.  Also the corporation stole the tree.


Can't argue with that.


He he.  Still one of my favorites.


I should make a rule about this within The Lunduke Journal.  Anyone who mentions "AI" has to drop a quarter in the tip jar.  I'd be rich!  Rich, I say!




I'm not saying Infrastructure guys are pansies nowadays.  But they're pansies nowadays.




It takes screenshots of your mouth.


You see... because they have small brains.
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