Internet Archive and six record-company plaintiffs reached a confidential settlement over the Great 78 Project in September 2025. On October 16, 2025, a federal court dismissed the case with prejudice, ending the lawsuit. The public record does not disclose the settlement amount or specific obligations, and the settlement was not a court ruling on whether infringement occurred.
What was settled?
The case, UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Internet Archive et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as case 3:23-cv-06522-MMC. The record-company plaintiffs were UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Bicycle Assets, CMGI Recorded Music Assets, Sony Music Entertainment, and Arista Music. Defendants included Internet Archive, Brewster Kahle, Kahle/Austin Foundation, George Blood, and George Blood LP.
The dispute centered on the Great 78 Project, which digitized recordings from physical 78 rpm records and made digital files available for streaming and downloading. The San Francisco Chronicle described the collection as containing more than 400,000 fragile shellac records, including recordings by Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, and Billie Holiday (San Francisco Chronicle).
Copyright Alliance reported in its 2025 year-in-review that the plaintiffs alleged infringement involving 2,749 pre-1972 sound recordings. That is an allegation in the litigation, not a number determined by the court (Copyright Alliance).
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstall#1 Best Overall
When did the settlement and dismissal happen?
September 15, 2025: confidential resolution announced
The parties jointly notified the court on September 15 that they had settled. They asked to vacate upcoming deadlines while certain terms were performed and said they expected to file a dismissal within 45 days after performance. The notice said: “Once performance of certain terms of the settlement is complete, the Parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice” (joint notice on CourtListener).
In a post that day, Internet Archive said: “The parties have reached a confidential resolution of all claims and will have no further public comment on this matter.” The statement was authored by Chris Freeland, the organization’s Director of Library Services (Internet Archive).
Rank #2
October 16, 2025: case dismissed with prejudice
The court’s October 16 order dismissed all claims with prejudice and directed each party to bear its own fees and costs (final order on CourtListener). “With prejudice” means the claims in this action were dismissed as final, rather than left open to be refiled as the same case. The order establishes the procedural end of the lawsuit; it does not reveal the negotiated settlement terms.
How much did the settlement cost?
The settlement amount, if any, has not been disclosed in the public materials cited here. Reported damages figures refer to claims or estimates made during the lawsuit, not a settlement payment or court award:
Recommended Free Tools
- Ars Technica reported that the labels initially alleged $400 million in damages, then later raised their estimate to $700 million after adding works to the case (Ars Technica).
- The San Francisco Chronicle separately reported that the labels had sought $621 million (San Francisco Chronicle).
These figures differ by source and procedural point. None establishes what, if anything, changed hands under the confidential settlement.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did Internet Archive admit infringement, or will the recordings come down?
The public documents cited here do not establish an admission of infringement. Because the case settled rather than proceeding to a decision on the merits, the dismissal should not be described as a judicial finding that either side’s infringement arguments were proven.
Rank #4
The cited public materials also do not specify whether recordings must be removed, whether access to the Great 78 Project will change, or whether the parties agreed to other operational steps. The settlement announcement and dismissal order alone do not establish such requirements or confirm the collection’s present availability.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
