{"id":87847,"date":"2026-10-15T09:05:57","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T09:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=87847"},"modified":"2026-10-15T09:05:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T09:05:57","slug":"publishers-seek-19-5m-from-pirate-library-welib-recycle-annas-archive-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=87847","title":{"rendered":"Publishers Seek $19.5m From Pirate Library WeLib, Recycle Anna\u2019s Archive Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"welibLast year, Anna\u2019s Archive warned its users about WeLib, a \u201cnew entrant<\/a>\u201d in the shadow library ecosystem.<\/p>\n

The site appeared to have mirrored most of Anna\u2019s collection and used a fork of its codebase. Since WeLib wasn\u2019t sharing new collections or code improvements in return, Anna\u2019s Archive cautioned prospective users. <\/p>\n

\u201cWe recommend not using them,\u201d the team wrote<\/a> at the time.<\/p>\n

In June, major book publishers came to a similar conclusion, but for different reasons. They filed a lawsuit against WeLib<\/a> in New York federal court, alleging that the site \u201cwas created after its operators copied the source code and most of the contents of\u201d Anna\u2019s Archive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

WeLib<\/em><\/center>
\"welib<\/center><\/p>\n

Despite these and other copyright infringement allegations, WeLib\u2019s anonymous operators never responded to the lawsuit. This prompted the publishers to move forward and the court clerk entered a default in August, opening the door to a final judgment request.<\/p>\n

$19.5 Million, Again<\/h2>\n

On Monday, the publishers, including Penguin Random House<\/a>, Elsevier<\/a>, and HarperCollins<\/a>, asked U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero to issue a default judgment against WeLib and its unnamed operators.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendant WeLib is a pirate site whose sole business is the distribution of protected content in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and other copyright owners,\u201d their brief reads.<\/p>\n

The publishers request the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the 130 works listed in the complaint, ten per publisher. That adds up to $19.5 million, the same amount Judge Jed Rakoff awarded<\/a> in the Anna\u2019s Archive case.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Damages calculation<\/em><\/center>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff<\/th>\nAmount<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Apress Media, LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cengage Learning, Inc.<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elsevier Inc.<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hachette Book Group, Inc.<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
HarperCollins Publishers LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Macmillan Learning<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
McGraw Hill LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pearson Education, Inc.<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Penguin Random House LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Simon and Schuster, LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Taylor & Francis Group LLC<\/td>\n$1,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total:<\/td>\n$19,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/center><\/p>\n

The brief also puts a spotlight on WeLib\u2019s revenue model. The site can be used for free, but it asks users for \u201cdonations\u201d of up to $90 a month. According to the publishers, these are simply payments for faster downloads.<\/p>\n

In addition to the damages, the publishers want a permanent injunction. This would require domain registries and registrars to disable welib.org, welib.st, and welib-public.org, and to block their transfer to anyone other than the publishers. Hosting providers would have to stop serving the sites.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Named intermediaries<\/em><\/center>
\"intermediaries\"<\/center><\/p>\n

The injunction would apply to all applicable intermediaries, but the proposed order names five specifically: Public Interest Registry<\/a>, Cloudflare<\/a>, Tucows<\/a>, and two Njalla<\/a> entities. That\u2019s a much shorter list than the Anna\u2019s Archive judgment, which named more than twenty.<\/p>\n

Borrowed From Anna\u2019s Archive<\/h2>\n

It is not unusual that arguments from a similar case are reused and that also applies here. Large parts of the WeLib brief mirror the one that law firm Oppenheim + Zebrak<\/a> filed against Anna\u2019s Archive in May, on behalf of the same publishers.<\/p>\n

However, not everything fits. According to the brief, WeLib diverts revenue from the publishers \u201cat a scale made worse by their use of the viral BitTorrent protocol.\u201d<\/p>\n

We haven\u2019t seen any evidence that WeLib uses BitTorrent, and the WeLib complaint doesn\u2019t mention it either. Instead, the cited paragraphs discuss various harms including lost sales and harm to the market for AI training data.<\/p>\n

The same sentence appears, word for word, in the brief against Anna\u2019s Archive. There, it was backed up by the complaint, which described how Anna\u2019s Archive offers torrent files for bulk downloads on a dedicated \u201cTorrents\u201d page.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Same sentence, different site<\/em><\/center>
\"welib<\/center><\/p>\n

WeLib\u2019s own complaint mentions another download mechanism. It describes how the site serves files directly from its servers, through \u201cslow\u201d and paid \u201cfast\u201d downloads.<\/p>\n

The brief also mentions that WeLib\u2019s infringement continued \u201cdespite this and several other cases against them.\u201d That entire paragraph comes straight from the Anna\u2019s Archive brief. While Anna\u2019s Archive was sued before, we are not aware of any other lawsuits against WeLib\u2019s operators.<\/p>\n

Even a typo and a garbled sentence with a double negative were copied. Both briefs mention what happens if the court \u201cis satified<\/em>\u201d that the default standards are met, and both argue that the defendants \u201ccannot establish that they have not presented any meritorious defenses.\u201d <\/p>\n

A Paper Victory?<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s now up to Judge Marrero to decide on the request. Whatever the outcome, the publishers are unlikely to collect much, if anything, as WeLib\u2019s operators remain anonymous.<\/p>\n

Anna\u2019s Archive lost several domains to an earlier injunction obtained by music companies. However, it remains online<\/a> through .gl, .pk, and .gd domains, which are tied to registries and registrars outside the United States.<\/p>\n

If Anna\u2019s Archive is any indication, the injunction may cost WeLib some of its domains. However, that is no guarantee that the site will shut down permanently. <\/p>\n

<\/em>\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n

A copy of the publishers\u2019 memorandum in support of the motion for default judgment is available here (pdf)<\/a>. The proposed default judgment and the statement of damages can be found here (pdf)<\/a> and here (pdf)<\/a>. The publishers\u2019 earlier brief against Anna\u2019s Archive is available here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We reached out to Oppenheim + Zebrak for comment on the BitTorrent claim, but they did not respond before publication.<\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last year, Anna\u2019s Archive warned its users about WeLib, a \u201cnew entrant\u201d in the shadow library ecosystem. The site appeared to have mirrored most of Anna\u2019s collection and used a fork of its codebase. Since WeLib wasn\u2019t sharing new collections or code improvements in return, Anna\u2019s Archive cautioned prospective users. \u201cWe recommend not using them,\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":87848,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=87847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87847\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/87848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=87847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=87847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=87847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}