"Oh-muh-gosh!  Community is so important to Open Source!"

How often do we hear that?  How often are we inundated with declarations of how absolutely amazing the "Linux Community" or the "Open Source Community" are?

Constantly.

There are entire conferences dedicated to Open Source "Communities" -- and nearly every company or foundation which is even remotely "Open Source-y" has an official "Community Manager" position.  Sometimes several of them.

The Heck With That

Well, I'm here to say what most of us are thinking (but are afraid to say out loud):

The "Community" is the absolute worst part of Open Source Software.

Search your feelings.  You know it to be true.

Over the last few years we have seen an onslaught of attacks -- on the software we use and love (and the people that build and use that software) -- perpetrated by that "Community" that is deemed so important and amazing.

Here are 5 quick examples to give you an idea of what the "Open Source Community" does.

• The NixOS "Community" committed a "purge" (their word) of people they don't politically agree with (who they attacked and libelously labeled as "Nazis") -- even forcing their founder out of the project.
• The openSUSE "Community" engaged in mass bannings of contributors and users with the wrong political leanings (calling them "Rotten Flesh" which must be "cut out").
• The Python "Community" suspended one of their most prominent members for "liking an old SNL sketch".
• The GNOME "Community" regularly bans anyone (even prominent contributors) who simply mention the existence of "The Lunduke Journal" -- and their leadership convenes secret meetings to overturn the results of votes by their members.
• The "Open Source Community" attacked the creator of the Ladybird Web Browser -- who they libelously called a "supporter of human slavery" and a "transphobe".

The examples go on, and on, and on.  We could spend all day listing recent incidents where the "Open Source Community" has actively brought about significant harm and destruction -- both to the software they claim to support... and to the people who build and use it.

In fact, I would say there is a very strong case to be made that the "Community" is the single biggest problem with Open Source Software.

Not All Communities Are Good

A "Community" of people can be a fantastic, productive, supportive force.  But, if that was ever the case with the "Open Source Community" -- and, I believe, at one point (long ago) it was -- it certainly is not anymore.

The word "Community" gets thrown around -- rather constantly -- as if it's some magical, always wonderful thing.  When the truth is often the exact opposite.

Case in point: An enraged mob carrying torches and pitchforks.  That's a community.

A group of zombies, shuffling together towards their next meal (your brains).  That, also, is a community.

We could list an almost endless number of examples of "communities" which are destructive and, in many cases, downright evil.  But I think you get the point.

The hard reality is that the "Open Source Community" has become something akin to the torch-wielding mob (with a dash of zombie thrown in for good measure).

Destructive.  Angry.  Terrorizing.

And, importantly, striking fear in the hearts of any who dare oppose the mob.

An anecdotal example:

Recently, I was having a discussion, via E-Mail, with the founder of a prominent Open Source project.  There had been a round of mob-like attacks on some of the members of that project (because that's what happens in Open Source projects with a "Community"), and I was working on an article covering those events.

All very ordinary.  That sort of thing happens weekly.

Then the founder of that project requested -- nay... pleaded -- that I hold off on publishing the article.  And, if I did publish the article, to not include the founders name or indicate that we had spoken at all.

Because, and I quote, "I worry that it will make things *worse* for me."

The founder feared what the mob (aka the "Community" of the Open Source project which that person had created) would do if they found out we had simply spoken.

If you speak out against the mob (the "Community")... the mob attacks you.  Everyone knows it.  And everyone fears it.

The Mob Will Continue if We Let It

That project founder is not alone.

It is exceedingly rare that more than a few days go by without hearing about similar situations -- people (contributors, founders, and users) bullied and terrorized into silence by a mob hiding behind the moniker of "Open Source Community".

A mob which has been -- often -- granted extreme levels of power over projects, foundations, and corporations.  Power which they use to drive away founders, contributors, and users and -- along the way -- effectively hold the remaining contributors hostage through an environment of terror.

This "Community" is, observably, causing more damage to Open Source than any other single thing I can think of.

Make no mistake... Open Source Software is, in my opinion, a wonderful, positive thing.  Software being "Open Source" allows it to be used and maintained long past the time the original developers may have moved on or dropped support.  It facilitates increased security testing, historical preservation, and so many other benefits.

In short, Open Source -- both the concept and practical implementation -- is worth saving.

The question is: How can this "Community" be stopped?  How can we, effectively, disarm this mob... this "Community"?

I suggest the two following actions.

1. Speak out when the "Community" bullies you (or others).  Directly.  Publicly.  If you fear retribution (as so many do), reach out to the press to discuss how to publish your story while retaining your anonymity.
2. For project founders: Retain (or re-obtain) absolute control over your project.  Be a dictator.  If the "Open Source Community" is allowed any level of unchecked control over your creation (including something as seemingly simple as "moderation of a forum"), the "Community" will use it to harm you and others.  One person must always have dictatorial control -- the right to over-ride anything -- within a software project.

This may sound harsh -- and rather extreme -- to many of you.  Unfortunately, the harsh reality of the "Open Source Community", necessitates these sorts of measures in order to limit the effectiveness of the mob.

The more people that speak out about the bullying and terror tactics of the mob... the safer it gets for others to speak out as well.  Likewise removing power from the mob is always a smart move when dealing with... well... a mob.

Many will criticize the things I am saying here.  They will say that I am "anti-Community" or "anti-Democracy" or the like.  It is a near certainty that members of the "Open Source Community" will hurl a wide variety of insults my way.  That is expected.

Nothing enrages the mob (aka the "Open Source Community") more than speaking the truth publicly.

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.

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.