# **Music Labels vs. Internet Archive: The Clash Over the Great 78 Project**
## **Introduction**
The Internet Archive (IA), a nonprofit digital library, is embroiled in a legal dispute with prominent music labels concerning its *Great 78 Project*, which aims to preserve and digitize vintage 78 RPM records. Music labels assert that IA is committing widespread copyright infringement, while IA contends that its initiatives are crucial for safeguarding musical heritage. This lawsuit has sparked significant concerns regarding the future of digital archiving and copyright regulations.
## **The Lawsuit and Its Progression**
On March 6, 2025, music labels initiated a motion to broaden their lawsuit against IA by including nearly 500 more sound recordings in their allegations. Should the court approve this addition, the total damages sought could escalate to around **$700 million**, a considerable jump from the original **$400 million** claim.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2023, contends that IA is unlawfully distributing copyrighted music without the necessary licenses. The labels argue that the Great 78 Project operates in a manner akin to streaming services like Spotify or Apple Music, depriving artists and rights holders of their royalties.
## **The Great 78 Project: Preservation or Infringement?**
The Great 78 Project seeks to digitize and preserve **three million** recordings from 78 RPM records produced between **1898 and the 1950s**. These records are deemed outdated, and many are in danger of being lost due to physical degradation.
IA and its advocates assert that the project constitutes a **fair use** endeavor under copyright law, aimed at conserving historical recordings that may otherwise vanish. Conversely, music labels argue that IA is knowingly breaching copyright laws and diminishing the commercial worth of these recordings.
## **Musicians and Archivists Support IA**
In spite of resistance from music labels, **more than 850 musicians** have openly backed the Great 78 Project. In December 2024, the advocacy group *Fight for the Future* launched a campaign urging labels to withdraw the lawsuit. Lia Holland, a representative for the group, slammed the labels’ legal approach, claiming that the lawsuit could financially incapacitate IA.
Archivists and historians have also come to IA’s defense, stressing the significance of preserving these recordings. Many contend that **78 RPM records are becoming rarer**, and few libraries possess the means to play them. They further challenge the assertion that commercially available streaming services offer sufficient access to these historical recordings.
## **The Discussion on Copyright and Fair Use**
The lawsuit prompts broader inquiries regarding **copyright law and digital preservation**. Music labels claim that IA is contravening the **Music Modernization Act**, which established a licensing framework for digital streaming services and broadened copyright protections for recordings created before 1972.
Nonetheless, archivists argue that copyright statutes should be modified to facilitate **greater access to historical recordings**. Nathan Georgitis, executive director of the Association for Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC), highlighted that numerous 78 RPM recordings are not found on commercial platforms, making IA’s efforts vital for historical inquiry.
## **Possible Repercussions for the Internet Archive**
If IA fails in the lawsuit, the financial repercussions could be severe, potentially leading to the organization’s closure. This would not only affect the Great 78 Project but also other essential services offered by IA, such as the **Wayback Machine**, which tracks webpage archiving over time.
David Seubert, a sound archivist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, cautioned that music labels may regret their legal offensive against IA. He noted that even the labels themselves depend on IA’s resources, especially the Wayback Machine, for historical research purposes.
## **Conclusion**
The legal confrontation between music labels and the Internet Archive underscores the persistent conflict between **copyright enforcement and digital preservation**. While labels aim to safeguard their financial interests, archivists and musicians advocate that preserving historical recordings is vital for cultural heritage.
As copyright laws continue to evolve, the resolution of this case could establish a precedent for future operations of digital archives. Whether IA will sustain its mission or encounter financial disaster remains uncertain; however, the case has already ignited a pivotal debate regarding the equilibrium between intellectual property rights and public access to historical materials.
