Why Publishers Are Blocking the Internet Archive From AI Scrapers [2025]

The internet has a memory, and it lives in the Wayback Machine. For decades, the Internet Archive has quietly preserved millions of web pages, PDFs, books, and articles in a massive digital library accessible to everyone. Journalists use it to track deleted tweets. Researchers rely on it for academic background. Historians mine it for cultural documentation.

But now, something's changed.

In late 2024 and early 2025, major publishers started blocking the Internet Archive's web crawler from accessing their sites. The reason? They believe AI companies are exploiting the Archive's vast collections to train large language models—bypassing copyright protections and licensing agreements in the process.

The Guardian, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and Reddit have all moved to restrict the nonprofit's bot from crawling their content. It's the latest escalation in what's becoming a fundamental tension between artificial intelligence, copyright law, and the open web.

This isn't just about protecting archived articles. It's about control, attribution, and who gets to decide what happens to creative work in the age of AI. The stakes are massive—and the implications reach far beyond journalism.

TL; DR

Major publishers are blocking Internet Archive access due to concerns that AI companies use archived content to train models without permission or compensation
The Guardian, NYT, Financial Times, and Reddit have all implemented robots.txt restrictions or other blocking measures
AI scraping via the Archive effectively sidesteps copyright protections and licensing agreements publishers negotiated
Over a dozen lawsuits from publishers target OpenAI, Microsoft, Perplexity, Google, and other AI companies for unauthorized training data use
The battle reveals a core conflict: how to protect creator rights while maintaining an open, documented web for legitimate research and preservation

Understanding the Internet Archive's Role in Digital Preservation

Before we get into the conflict, it's important to understand what the Internet Archive actually is and why it matters.

Founded in 1996 by digital librarian Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to digitally preserving human knowledge. It operates one of the largest digital libraries in the world—the Wayback Machine—which has captured over 900 billion web pages since its inception.

The scale is almost incomprehensible. The Archive stores:

400+ million archived web pages with multiple snapshots of how sites looked at different points in time
20+ million digitized books from libraries and cultural institutions
Millions of audio recordings, including rare music and podcasts
Hundreds of thousands of videos, documentaries, and news broadcasts
Academic papers, court documents, government records, and more

This collection serves a vital public function. It's a historical record. It's a research tool. It's a reference point when companies delete information, when URLs break, or when institutions want to cover up past statements.

For journalists specifically, the Archive has been indispensable. Need to verify that a politician said something they're now denying? The Wayback Machine probably has the original tweet or article. Want to check if a company made misleading claims about a product in their past marketing? The Archive stores those old landing pages.

Academic researchers use it extensively. The Archive's partnership with libraries means many out-of-print books are available there legally. It's become a critical infrastructure for knowledge work across fields—not just journalism, but history, sociology, computer science, and more.

The nonprofit operates on a principle of open access and preservation. They don't charge for access. They don't restrict who can use their collections (within legal bounds). They're explicitly trying to create a permanent, stable record of human knowledge in digital form.

This mission aligns with the spirit of the early internet—the idea that information should flow freely and be preserved for future generations. But that philosophy is now colliding with the commercial interests of AI companies and the copyright concerns of publishers.

How AI Companies Are Allegedly Using the Internet Archive

Let's talk about what's actually happening under the hood.

Large language models like Chat GPT, Claude, and others require massive amounts of training data to function. The quality and breadth of this data directly determines the model's capabilities. More text, more diverse sources, more recent information—all of these improve model performance.

For AI companies building competitive models, sourcing this training data has always been a challenge. They need:

Volume: Billions of tokens of text to train on
Diversity: Content from many different domains, writing styles, and perspectives
Quality: Well-written, reliable sources (not just random text from the internet)
Recency: Current information and recent articles for accurate knowledge

Publishers' websites are an obvious target because they meet all these criteria. News articles, magazine pieces, opinion columns—these are high-quality, diverse text produced by professional writers. A single major publication might produce thousands of articles per year, each one a potential training example.

But here's the problem from the publishers' perspective: they control their own sites. They can implement robots.txt files to block crawlers. They can require licenses. They can negotiate deals or refuse access entirely.

The Internet Archive, however, presents a different opportunity. Here's the logic AI companies might follow:

The Archive has already crawled and stored content from millions of websites
This content is freely accessible through the Archive's API
The Archive's policy is to provide open access to preserved materials
AI companies can legally access the Archive without violating any agreements with the Archive itself
Therefore, they can train models on this data without the original publishers' permission

It's a technical and legal loophole. The publishers never agreed to have their content used for AI training, but the Archive did capture it and make it available. By accessing the Archive instead of the original publisher's site, AI companies can plausibly claim they're not violating any agreement with the publisher.

As The Guardian's Robert Hahn explained it to Nieman Lab: "A lot of these AI businesses are looking for readily available, structured databases of content. The Internet Archive's API would have been an obvious place to plug their own machines into and suck out the IP."

There's no public evidence yet that major AI companies are explicitly using the Archive at scale for training. But publishers don't need proof—they just need plausible concern. And the concern is entirely reasonable, given how aggressively AI companies have pursued training data from other sources.

The irony is that this blocking might actually be counterproductive for publishers. By blocking the Archive, they're preventing their own content from being preserved for historical purposes. But they're also taking a calculated risk that the Archive's unique value as a preservation resource outweighs the risk of AI training exploitation.

The Publishers Taking Action

So which publishers are actually blocking the Internet Archive, and what methods are they using?

The New York Times

The Times was explicit about its reasoning. A representative told Nieman Lab: "We are blocking the Internet Archive's bot from accessing the Times because the Wayback Machine provides unfettered access to Times content—including by AI companies—without authorization."

This is particularly significant because the Times is simultaneously in active litigation against OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming they used Times content to train models without permission. The blocking of the Archive is essentially a defensive move in that broader battle.

The Times has also struck experimental partnerships with AI companies—OpenAI announced a content licensing deal in early 2025—but these are exceptions. The default position is protective.

The Guardian

The Guardian's approach reflects similar concerns. The publication has been explicit that it's blocking the Archive's crawler to prevent AI companies from accessing their content indirectly.

What's notable about The Guardian's position is that it's from a publication with a more activist stance on technology policy and corporate accountability. The move suggests that even publishers who are generally skeptical of corporate power see AI training as a sufficiently serious threat to warrant blocking a preservation institution.

The Financial Times

The Financial Times, a subscription-focused publication from the FT Group, has similar concerns. Subscription revenue depends on readers paying for exclusive access to content. If AI companies train models on archived FT content, they're effectively undermining the value of that subscription—readers could ask an AI for summaries of FT articles without paying.

Reddit's blocking is interesting because Reddit traditionally took a more permissive stance toward content reuse. The community-driven platform's users generate the content, often for free. But Reddit's decision to block the Archive reflects the platform's shifting commercial priorities and its own licensing deals with AI companies.

Reddit has been pursuing revenue by licensing its data to AI companies. If the Archive provides free access to the same data, that undermines Reddit's business model.

Other publications have reportedly taken similar steps, though not all have been public about it. The blocking seems to be spreading as publishers recognize the potential loophole and move to close it.

The Copyright War: Publishers Suing AI Companies

Blocking the Internet Archive is just one defensive tactic. Publishers are also pursuing aggressive legal strategies against AI companies directly.

Over the past two years, there's been an explosion of copyright lawsuits from media organizations targeting AI companies. Let's map out the major ones:

The New York Times vs. OpenAI and Microsoft

This is the highest-profile case. The Times sued both OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that they:

Scraped millions of Times articles without permission
Used that content to train models that now compete with the Times
Generate responses that reproduce Times content verbatim or near-verbatim
Threaten the Times' business model by providing free summaries of news articles

The Times is seeking billions in damages and injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized use.

The Center for Investigative Reporting vs. OpenAI and Microsoft

The Center for Investigative Reporting (which produces Pro Publica) filed similar claims, pointing out that AI companies can generate detailed summaries of their investigative work without credit or compensation.

The Wall Street Journal and New York Post vs. Perplexity

Perplexity, an AI search engine, has faced particular heat from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post (both owned by News Corp). Perplexity's model is built around synthesizing multiple sources, which often means reproducing significant portions of published articles.

The lawsuit alleges that Perplexity:

Scrapes content from paywalled publications
Removes attribution and source citations
Presents AI-generated summaries as its own content
Harms publications' ability to drive traffic and subscription revenue

Multiple Publishers vs. Cohere

A group including The Atlantic, The Guardian, and Politico sued Cohere, alleging similar copyright violations.

Penske Media vs. Google

Penske Media, which publishes outlets like Variety and Deadline, sued Google over AI overviews that synthesize content without proper attribution.

The New York Times and Chicago Tribune vs. Perplexity

Perplexity has faced multiple suits, including from The Chicago Tribune in partnership with the Times.

The scope of these lawsuits is striking. They represent nearly every major publishing sector—newspapers, magazines, investigative outlets, entertainment news—all converging on the same fundamental complaint: unauthorized use of copyrighted material for commercial AI product development.

The Legal Questions at Stake

These lawsuits raise complex questions that haven't been definitively settled in court:

Fair use doctrine: Can AI companies claim that scraping and training on copyrighted material constitutes "fair use" under copyright law? The answer isn't obvious. Fair use sometimes protects transformative uses of copyrighted material, but it's not unlimited. Courts will have to decide if training AI models qualifies.

Commercial harm: How much actual harm needs to occur for copyright infringement claims to succeed? If a user asks Chat GPT for a summary of a Times article and doesn't click through to read the original, is that measurable damage? How do you quantify it?

Attribution and licensing: If AI companies were willing to attribute content sources and pay licensing fees, would that satisfy copyright concerns? Some publishers have negotiated such deals (like the Times with OpenAI), suggesting they'd accept compensation.

The distinction between training and deployment: Using content to train a model is different from reproducing it in user-facing outputs. Should copyright law treat these differently?

These questions will likely take years to resolve through the courts. In the meantime, publishers are taking whatever defensive measures they can.

Why the Internet Archive Became a Target

The Internet Archive isn't a for-profit AI company. It's a nonprofit dedicated to preservation. So why is it caught in the crossfire?

The answer comes down to a few structural factors:

First, the Archive Has Scale

The Archive's collections represent decades of web preservation. Any single AI company's independent crawling operation would take months or years to match what the Archive has already done. Why spend resources building your own database when you can access a ready-made collection through the Archive's API?

Second, the Archive Has Legitimacy

There's an implicit legitimacy to accessing the Internet Archive. The Archive is a trusted nonprofit. Its preservation mission is recognized and respected. Using Archive-sourced data might seem more defensible than directly scraping publishers' sites.

This perception matters, even if the legal reality is more complex. From a brand perspective, an AI company can say "we used the Internet Archive's public collections" more easily than "we scraped your website without permission."

Third, Legal Ambiguity

The Archive's own terms of service don't explicitly prohibit AI companies from using their data for training. The Archive is open to the public. Its mission is to provide access. If an AI company accesses the Archive through its API and trains a model on that data, they're technically complying with the Archive's own policies.

Publishers, on the other hand, have explicit robots.txt files and terms of service prohibiting commercial reuse. Violating those is clearer copyright infringement.

Fourth, the Archive as Infrastructure

The Archive isn't primarily a publisher. It's infrastructure. It's how the web preserves itself. That makes it a natural point where conflicts between different interests (publishers, AI companies, preservation, open access) converge.

The Internet Archive didn't cause this problem. But its position as the world's largest public digital library makes it an ideal point of leverage for all sides.

The Tension Between Preservation and Protection

Here's where things get philosophically complicated.

The Internet Archive's core mission is preservation and open access. These principles have driven its work for nearly 30 years. The Archive believes that information should be accessible, that history should be documented, and that knowledge shouldn't disappear when companies delete content or go offline.

That's genuinely valuable. It's also fundamentally at odds with the idea of protecting content from unauthorized commercial use.

When publishers block the Archive, they're prioritizing copyright protection over preservation. They're saying: "We'd rather have our content disappear from the historical record than risk it being used by AI companies without permission."

That's a rational business decision, but it comes with real costs:

Loss of historical documentation: Future historians won't have snapshots of how these publications presented themselves during crucial moments. The archive of record becomes incomplete.

Reduced research access: Academics studying journalism, media, or current events lose a primary source.

Vulnerability to deletion: Once content is removed from publishers' sites, it's gone forever unless the Archive has it.

The Archive's response has been measured but pointed. They understand publishers' concerns about AI, but they've argued that blocking preservation institutions isn't the solution.

There's a middle path being discussed in some circles: what if publishers could block commercial AI access specifically, while still allowing research and preservation use? Some have proposed modifications to robots.txt that distinguish between different types of crawlers.

But that's technically complex and would require broad adoption to be effective. For now, we're seeing a stark binary: either the Archive can access your content, or it can't.

The Broader Impact on the Open Web

This conflict isn't just about AI or copyright. It's about the fundamental architecture of the internet and who controls access to information.

For the past few decades, the web has operated on a model of relative openness. Websites publicly publish content. Search engines crawl and index it. Archives preserve it. Researchers access it. The system creates friction and limitations (paywall access, terms of service, robots.txt files), but the default is toward availability.

AI has disrupted that model. Now, accessing publicly available content and using it for commercial purposes at massive scale is technically possible in a way it wasn't before. A single company can ingest the entire corpus of published journalism in weeks.

Publishers are pushing back by:

Blocking preservation institutions (the Internet Archive)
Implementing robots.txt restrictions that target AI crawlers
Pursuing legal action against AI companies
Negotiating licensing deals with specific AI partners
Building proprietary AI tools to compete directly

Together, these strategies represent a move toward a more restrictive, controlled web. Content will be preserved selectively. Access will be negotiated. The default will shift from open to protected.

There are good reasons for this shift—creators deserve compensation for their work. But there are also real costs. A web where most content is behind licensing agreements is less useful for research, preservation, and public knowledge. It's also less resilient to corporate interests.

What we're seeing with the Internet Archive is a preview of how these conflicts will play out across the web. The principle being established is: if you're concerned about how your content is being used, you need to actively restrict access, rather than relying on norms or legal protections.

That's a significant shift in how digital infrastructure works.

Alternative Approaches: Licensing and Compensation Models

Not every publisher is choosing to block the Internet Archive. Some are exploring different strategies that might actually be more economically productive.

Direct Licensing Deals

Several publishers have negotiated content licensing agreements with AI companies. These typically involve:

Upfront payments to the publisher
Per-token or per-query fees for content used in model outputs
Attribution requirements when the model references content
Data governance terms specifying how content can be used

The Times' deal with OpenAI, announced in early 2025, exemplifies this approach. The Times gets paid, OpenAI gets legitimate access to Times content, and users get attribution when they interact with Times material through Chat GPT.

This model has advantages:

Publishers capture value from their content
AI companies have legitimate, defensible rights to use content
Creators get compensation
Users see proper attribution

The downside is complexity and negotiation costs. Not every publisher has the leverage or resources to negotiate favorable deals.

API-Based Monetization

Some publishers are building APIs that allow AI companies to access content in controlled ways. Rather than blocking access, they're monetizing it.

For example, Reuters has explored API-based access for AI companies wanting to use their news data. This allows controlled, compensated access without the complexity of individual licensing negotiations.

Compensation Funds

There's been discussion of industry-wide compensation models where AI companies contribute to funds that compensate creators. The EU's approach to digital copyright includes provisions for collective compensation, which some have proposed as a model.

Under this system:

AI companies pay into a fund based on usage
The fund distributes compensation to creators
Creators don't have to negotiate individually
Access remains relatively open

Open Source and Creative Commons

Some publishers are explicitly licensing their content under Creative Commons terms that allow AI training with attribution. This signals openness to AI use while maintaining creator recognition.

Publications like Wired have experimented with more permissive approaches, betting that the benefits of AI integration outweigh the risks.

Each approach has tradeoffs. Licensing deals provide direct compensation but require negotiation. APIs scale better but are technically complex. Compensation funds are equitable but hard to administer. Open licensing is philosophically consistent but provides no direct payment.

What This Means for Creators, Journalists, and Researchers

If you're a creator, journalist, or researcher, this conflict has real implications:

For Journalists

If you work for a publication that's blocking the Internet Archive, your work is now less discoverable historically. Future researchers studying 2024-2025 journalism will have gaps in their archives. That affects how your work is remembered and studied.

On the flip side, if your publication negotiated a licensing deal with an AI company, you might get additional revenue. Some publishers are passing a portion of AI licensing fees to writers. Others aren't, keeping it as publisher revenue.

For Researchers and Academics

Losing Internet Archive access to major publications makes research harder. If you're studying recent history, political communication, or media trends, you're now dependent on whatever content remains publicly available. Paywalled archives won't help you.

This creates a perverse incentive structure: well-resourced institutions with library budgets can still access content through subscriptions. Independent researchers lose access. Inequality in information access increases.

For Archivists and Historians

The blocking of the Internet Archive by major publishers sets a troubling precedent. If publishers can block preservation institutions, the historical record becomes fragmented and incomplete. Future historians will study 2025 with significant gaps because we chose to protect copyright over preservation.

For AI Developers

This conflict creates uncertainty about training data rights. Companies building AI need clarity: can they use publicly available content? Do they need licenses? What's the legal standard?

The current ambiguity is actually damaging to legitimate AI development. Clearer rules would help responsible companies do things right.

The Global Regulatory Landscape

Different countries are taking different approaches to AI training and copyright, which adds another layer of complexity.

The European Union

The EU's Digital Services Act and upcoming AI regulations include provisions addressing AI training data. The EU generally takes a stronger stance on creator rights, requiring AI companies to have legitimate access to training data.

The EU's approach recognizes creator rights more explicitly than current U.S. law, which could mean stricter requirements for AI companies operating in Europe.

United States

U.S. copyright law relies on concepts like "fair use" that are more ambiguous. Fair use doctrine does allow some unlicensed use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, but the boundaries are unclear when applied to AI training.

The U.S. approach tends to favor more permissive use, but there's significant uncertainty. The courts will likely make crucial decisions over the next 2-3 years.

United Kingdom

The UK has explored text and data mining exceptions that might allow AI training with less restriction than the EU, though with royalty requirements.

China and Asia-Pacific

Countries in this region vary widely. Some have fewer copyright restrictions on training data. Others are developing frameworks as they develop AI capacity.

This global variation creates incentives for regulatory arbitrage: AI companies train models in jurisdictions with permissive rules, then deploy them globally. Publishers and creators need international coordination to enforce rights.

The Technical Arms Race: Blocking and Circumventing

As publishers implement blocking measures, there's an inevitable technical arms race between blockers and circumventers.

How Publishers Are Blocking

Robots.txt files are the primary tool. Publishers specify that certain user agents (bots) cannot access certain paths. The Internet Archive's crawler respects these files.

But here's the problem: robots.txt is an honor system. It works because crawlers voluntarily respect it. If a crawler wants to ignore robots.txt, technically nothing stops it (though it would violate terms of service).

Direct communication with the Internet Archive is more effective. Publishers can formally request that the Archive remove or not archive specific content. The Archive typically honors these requests, though there can be legal disputes over whether they should.

How Circumventers Might Respond

AI companies, if they wanted to circumvent blocks, have options:

Different crawlers using different user agents
Slower crawling that might evade detection
Accessing historical cached data before blocks were implemented
Licensing arrangements that give them legitimate access
International crawling from jurisdictions with different laws

This is a cat-and-mouse game with no permanent solution. Technical measures can slow bad actors but can't completely prevent them without breaking the functionality the Archive is supposed to provide.

Future Scenarios: How This Plays Out

Looking forward, several scenarios are plausible:

Scenario 1: Licensing Becomes Standard

AI companies negotiate licensing deals with major publishers. The Internet Archive loses some access, but creators get paid. Publishers participate in AI development through legitimate channels. The web becomes more controlled, but also more fairly compensated.

In this scenario, independent researchers and smaller institutions suffer. The web becomes less accessible overall, but creator rights are better protected.

Scenario 2: Legal Clarification Favors AI Companies

Courts rule that fair use allows AI training on publicly available data. Publishers can't effectively block this. The current licensing approach becomes less common. AI companies have easy, cheap access to training data.

In this scenario, creators and publishers have less leverage. But the open, preserved web survives and remains accessible.

Scenario 3: Regulatory Intervention

Governments implement new rules requiring AI companies to license or pay for training data. The Internet Archive develops technologies to distinguish between research access and commercial AI access. The ecosystem becomes more complex and regulated.

In this scenario, everyone negotiates more, but the rules are clearer. The Internet Archive might survive and thrive because it's protected as essential infrastructure.

Scenario 4: The Internet Archive Becomes Fragmented

Publishers increasingly opt out. The Archive's collections become incomplete. Content increasingly moves behind paywalls or proprietary systems. The shared, preserved web becomes a luxury good for well-funded institutions.

This is the worst-case scenario for preservation and open knowledge, but it's plausible if enough major publishers block.

The actual future will probably involve elements of multiple scenarios. Different publishers will make different choices. Courts will clarify some questions but not others. Technology will evolve to address concerns. And institutions like the Internet Archive will adapt.

What seems clear is that we're moving from an era of default openness to an era of negotiated, conditional access. That has real implications for how we preserve, research, and understand knowledge.

What Publishers Actually Fear

Understanding publishers' motivations is important. The threat isn't purely about copyright—it's about business model viability.

Publishers' core concern is this: if AI companies can train models on publisher content without paying, and users can get summaries from AI without clicking through to the original article, publishers lose traffic and subscription revenue.

This is a legitimate business concern. A publisher's revenue model depends on readers visiting their sites, clicking ads, or subscribing. If AI intermediates that relationship—if a user asks Chat GPT about the news instead of visiting their publication—that's a real threat.

Some of the fear is overblown. Many users will continue to prefer reading full articles from trusted publications rather than AI summaries. But some users will substitute AI for reading original content, especially for topics where they just want quick information.

Publishers are also concerned about attribution and source visibility. If an AI cites The Times in its reasoning but doesn't credit it in the visible output, that loses the traffic benefit and brand benefit of attribution.

From a publisher's perspective, the move to block the Internet Archive is about:

Maintaining traffic by preventing AI companies from providing their content for free
Controlling training data by preventing unauthorized use of their archives
Improving negotiating position by making their content scarcer and more valuable
Signaling intent to AI companies that unauthorized training isn't acceptable

These are rational business moves. Whether they're good for the internet as a whole is a different question.

The Creator's Dilemma: Rights Without Revenue

One crucial aspect of this conflict gets less attention: most creators don't own the copyright to their work.

A journalist who writes for The New York Times doesn't own the copyright to that article. The Times does. A photographer whose image is published in a magazine doesn't control how it's used. The publisher does.

This means that when publishers negotiate licensing deals with AI companies, the creators—the actual people who made the content—often don't see that compensation directly. It goes to the corporation that owns the rights.

Some publishers are changing this. The Guardian has discussed sharing some AI licensing revenue with writers. But this isn't standard.

For many creators, the Internet Archive conflict and AI training controversy highlight a deeper issue: they don't control their own work, and when someone profits from it, they don't benefit.

That's a bigger structural problem than the Internet Archive blocking issue, but it's worth noting that the creators most affected—journalists, writers, photographers—have the least say in how this conflict resolves.

The Internet Archive's Perspective and Response

The Internet Archive hasn't rolled over. The organization has actively pushed back on publishers' blocking and advocated for solutions that preserve both creator rights and preservation access.

Their core argument is: blocking preservation isn't the solution. The real problem is unauthorized commercial use by AI companies. The Archive provides a public service—preservation and research access. They should be able to continue doing that.

The Archive has proposed alternatives:

Targeted blocking: Instead of blocking all Archive access, publishers could request that the Archive specifically exclude content from being used by AI companies. This preserves historical access while preventing commercial misuse.

Tiered access: The Archive could provide different access levels. Research access is available immediately. Commercial access requires licensing. This protects researcher and historical access while respecting copyright.

Temporal restrictions: Content could be restricted for a period (like 5 years) to protect publisher revenue, then opened for preservation once it's no longer commercially valuable.

Metadata-based restrictions: The Archive could tag content with usage restrictions that tools are supposed to respect, making it technically difficult (though not impossible) to use for AI training.

Some of these proposals are technically feasible. Others would require broader cooperation and standard-setting across the industry.

The Archive's position is sympathetic: they're a nonprofit trying to preserve human knowledge. They're not trying to help AI companies circumvent copyright. But they also recognize that AI is a tool that can be used both ethically and unethically, and blocking their entire service isn't precise enough to address the real problem.

The tension is real, though. Even if the Internet Archive isn't intentionally helping AI companies, their open, API-accessible collections do provide a path for that to happen. The Archive can't control what people do with access they've provided.

Implications for Other Digital Infrastructure

The Internet Archive conflict is setting precedents that will affect other digital infrastructure projects.

If major publishers can successfully block the Internet Archive, what about:

Search engines: Could publishers block Google or Bing from indexing their content? They already can through robots.txt, but it's rare because search traffic drives value. But if AI companies are indexing for training rather than search, that calculation changes.

Academic databases: Research databases like Google Scholar or PubMed rely on crawling published research. Could publishers block these for AI training concerns? Would that undermine research accessibility?

Citation databases: Tools like Crossref and Open Alex track scientific publishing. Could blocking spread here?

Library systems: Public and university libraries provide digital access to content. Are they next?

The precedent being set is that institutions concerned about AI can and should block access to infrastructure that provides broad access. This could cascade in concerning ways.

It could also trigger policy responses. If blocking becomes widespread, governments might intervene to protect critical infrastructure for research and preservation. That could create new regulations that apply to archives, libraries, and other institutions.

The Internet Archive situation is a canary in the coal mine for larger questions about how digital infrastructure should work in the AI age.

What Needs to Happen: Policy and Legal Solutions

There's no perfect solution to the conflict between creator rights, AI development, and digital preservation. But several approaches could help:

Legal Clarity on Fair Use

Courts need to provide clear guidance on whether AI training constitutes fair use of copyrighted material. Current ambiguity is bad for everyone. Clear rules would help legitimate AI development and give creators clarity about their rights.

This might mean establishing that:

Training models on public content with clear licensing is acceptable
Training on content obtained by unauthorized scraping is not
Using trained models to reproduce content is different from using it for training
Attribution and compensation affect fair use determination

Statutory Licensing for AI Training

Some propose a statutory license similar to those used for music or radio. AI companies could train on copyrighted content in exchange for paying into a fund that compensates creators. This provides certainty and equitable compensation without requiring individual licensing negotiations.

The challenge is determining fair rates and ensuring compensation reaches actual creators.

API-Based Access Standards

The internet needs standards for how creators can indicate what uses they permit. This could be extensions to robots.txt or new metadata standards that allow granular control:

"Permit search engines, deny AI crawlers"
"Permit research access, deny commercial AI"
"Permit with attribution requirement"
"Permit with licensing requirement"

These standards would need adoption by both creators (to indicate preferences) and tools (to respect them).

Preservation as Infrastructure

Governments could recognize digital preservation as essential public infrastructure, similar to libraries or archives. This might include:

Public funding for the Internet Archive
Legal protections for preservation institutions
Requirements that digital archives be maintained for public access
Exemptions from copyright restrictions for preservation purposes

International Coordination

Since AI is global but copyright is national, international agreements are necessary. Different countries need compatible standards for what constitutes legitimate AI training data use.

Without this, AI companies will optimize for the most permissive jurisdictions, and creators in protective jurisdictions will have less leverage.

The Broader Shift: From Open Web to Controlled Web

Zooming out, what we're seeing is a fundamental shift in how the web works.

For 25+ years, the web's default mode was openness:

Content published online was assumed to be accessible
Search engines could crawl and index it
Preservation institutions could archive it
Researchers could access it
Restrictions were explicit exceptions

AI has disrupted this default. Now, the ability to process and learn from massive amounts of content at scale has made creators and publishers more protective. The default is shifting:

Content is published with restrictions
Crawling is actively blocked
Preservation access is limited
Research access requires negotiation
Open access is becoming special

This isn't entirely new. Paywalls, DRM, terms of service restrictions have been around for years. But AI has accelerated the shift and made restriction more economically rational.

The question isn't whether the web will become more controlled—it's how much, how fast, and what costs we accept in the transition.

A more restricted web might better protect creator rights. It will definitely harm research, preservation, and public knowledge. Those are real tradeoffs that society needs to debate explicitly, not just let happen through legal and technical skirmishes.

Why This Matters Beyond the News Industry

The Internet Archive conflict seems like an issue for journalists and publishers. But it actually affects everyone:

Students and researchers: If archives are less accessible, academic research becomes harder and more expensive.

Historians and documentarians: Future understanding of our era depends on preserved records. Gaps in the archive mean gaps in history.

AI developers building responsibly: If licensing and access remain unclear, companies trying to do things right face uncertainty.

Technology policy: How we resolve this determines what the internet looks like for the next decade.

Independent creators: Writers, photographers, musicians are watching how copyright is enforced. Better clarity helps them too.

Public knowledge: The internet's value depends on shared, accessible information. A more restricted web is a weaker resource for learning.

This isn't a niche issue. It's about fundamental infrastructure.

Lessons From Previous Technology Conflicts

This isn't the first time creators have fought to protect their work from new technology. Looking at history provides perspective:

The music industry vs. MP3s (1990s): The industry fought digital music, tried DRM, eventually settled on licensing and paid streaming. Creators benefit, but not as much as they'd like.

Authors vs. Google Books: Publishers sued Google over digitizing millions of books. The lawsuit settled with Google paying into a fund and deleting some scanned copies. Some books remain inaccessible.

Photography and Pinterest: The platform's "repinning" feature raised copyright issues. Eventually resolved through licenses and property rights recognition.

Stock photos and AI training: Stock photo sites negotiated with AI companies over training data use.

The pattern is consistent:

New technology emerges that can use creative content at scale
Creators and copyright holders resist
Legal battles ensue
Eventually, licensing and compensation models emerge
The technology is accepted, but with compensation
Some creators benefit, others don't
Content becomes less broadly accessible due to restrictions

AI training is following this pattern. The Internet Archive is one node in a larger conflict that will play out over years.

History suggests we'll eventually land on some combination of:

Legal standards clarifying fair use
Licensing deals between AI companies and content holders
Compensation funds or statutory licensing
More restrictive access to unpublished or recent content
Preserved access for research and preservation

The question isn't if we'll resolve this, but how much friction we'll create in the process and whether the final solution is fair.

Moving Forward: Actions for Different Stakeholders

If you're affected by this conflict, here's what you can do:

For Publishers and Content Creators

Negotiate deliberately: If you don't want your content used for AI training without compensation, don't just block the Internet Archive. Actively license your content or negotiate compensation arrangements.

Explore APIs: Building public APIs for legitimate uses (with compensation) is better than blocking everything.

Support preservation: Work with the Internet Archive to develop technical solutions that protect both commercial interests and preservation access.

Advocate for standards: Support development of metadata standards that let creators indicate usage restrictions precisely.

For Technology Companies and AI Developers

Use licensed data: Default to using training data you have clear rights to. This protects your business and supports creators.

Implement attribution: When models output content similar to training data, cite the source.

Support standards: Work with publishers and preservation institutions on technical standards for indicating usage permissions.

Invest in licensing: Treat creator compensation as a cost of doing business, not a technical problem to circumvent.

For Researchers and Academics

Document what you access: Create your own archives of important research and publications while you can access them.

Advocate for open access: Support open access publishing and open science initiatives that don't depend on restricted archives.

Work with institutions: Push your libraries and institutions to support preservation and access.

For Policy Makers

Clarify fair use: Provide legal guidance on AI training and copyright through legislation or court support.

Fund preservation: Digital preservation is critical infrastructure. It should receive public funding like libraries.

Support standards development: Encourage technical standards that balance creator rights and research access.

International coordination: Work with other countries on compatible copyright and AI training policies.

Conclusion: The Internet at a Crossroads

The internet's original promise was democratized access to information. The Internet Archive represents that promise in its purest form: a nonprofit dedicated to preserving human knowledge for everyone.

But that promise is being tested by new technology and legitimate creator concerns. Publishers aren't wrong to want compensation for their work. AI companies aren't wrong to want training data. Researchers aren't wrong to want preserved knowledge.

The Internet Archive blocking controversy exposes a fundamental tension: we can't optimize for everything simultaneously. We can't have both completely open data and complete creator control. We can't preserve everything while restricting access. We can't enable all innovation while protecting all rights.

Society needs to make choices about these tradeoffs—explicitly, fairly, and with full understanding of the costs. We shouldn't let these choices happen through legal default or technical necessity alone.

What happens in the next 2-3 years—as lawsuits resolve, standards develop, and companies negotiate—will shape the digital infrastructure of the next decade. The Internet Archive blocking is one manifestation of those larger choices.

The good news is that solutions exist. Licensing models work. Standards can be developed. Legal clarity can be provided. Fair compensation is possible. Preservation and creator rights don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The challenge is getting all stakeholders—publishers, technologists, policymakers, and preservation institutions—to agree on solutions that serve not just their own interests, but the broader public good.

The stakes are high. The internet's openness, the preservation of history, the viability of creative industries, and the trajectory of AI development all hang in the balance.

What happens to the Internet Archive matters far beyond a single nonprofit institution. It's a test of whether we can build digital systems that are both fair to creators and open to everyone. That's a test we need to pass.

FAQ

What is the Internet Archive?

The Internet Archive is a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization founded in 1996 that preserves digital content, including over 900 billion web pages, millions of books, audio recordings, and videos. Its most famous project is the Wayback Machine, which allows users to view archived versions of websites from different points in history.

Why are publishers blocking the Internet Archive?

Publishers are blocking the Internet Archive because they believe AI companies are using the Archive's API to access and scrape content for training large language models without authorization or compensation. By blocking the Archive's crawler, publishers aim to prevent this indirect route for AI training data access that circumvents their own robots.txt restrictions and licensing agreements.

How does the Internet Archive's API work?

The Internet Archive provides an API that allows programmatic access to its collections. Researchers, developers, and other legitimate users can query the API to retrieve archived content, metadata, and snapshots of websites. AI companies could theoretically use this API to access large amounts of content for training purposes without directly scraping publisher websites.

What is robots.txt and how does it relate to this issue?

Robots.txt is a text file placed on websites that instructs web crawlers which parts of the site they can and cannot access. Most legitimate crawlers respect robots.txt instructions. Publishers can block the Internet Archive's crawler by specifying it in robots.txt, but the Archive's crawled and stored content is already preserved—blocking only prevents future archiving. AI companies could potentially still access already-archived content through the Archive's API.

What lawsuits are being filed against AI companies over training data?

Multiple major publishers have filed copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies, including the New York Times suing OpenAI and Microsoft, the Wall Street Journal suing Perplexity, the Center for Investigative Reporting suing OpenAI and Microsoft, and coalitions including the Guardian, Atlantic, and Politico suing Cohere. These lawsuits allege unauthorized use of copyrighted articles to train AI models without permission or compensation.

What are the alternatives to blocking the Internet Archive?

Publishers could pursue licensing deals with AI companies (like the Times did with OpenAI), implement tiered access systems that restrict commercial AI use while permitting research access, use metadata-based restrictions that mark content as not for AI training, create compensation funds where AI companies pay for training data rights, or develop standard protocols that allow publishers to specify usage restrictions precisely rather than blocking all access.

How does this affect academic research and historical preservation?

When publishers block the Internet Archive, they're preventing legitimate researchers from accessing archived content for scholarly purposes and removing historical documentation from the permanent record. This harms researchers, historians, and future understanding of the era, as crucial information becomes inaccessible for academic study and historical reference once it's removed from publishers' websites.

What is the difference between AI training and AI output reproduction?

AI training is using copyrighted content as examples to teach a model to recognize patterns and generate responses. AI output reproduction is when a trained model generates text that closely resembles or reproduces copyrighted material in its responses to users. Copyright concerns apply to both, but they raise different legal questions about fair use and infringement.

Are there international differences in copyright law affecting AI training?

Yes. The European Union generally provides stronger creator protections and requires legitimate access to training data. The United States relies on "fair use" doctrine which is more ambiguous. Other countries have different standards, creating incentives for regulatory arbitrage where AI companies train models in permissive jurisdictions but deploy them globally, making international coordination necessary for consistent protection.

What should creators do to protect their work from AI training?

Creators can opt out of specific AI scrapers using robots.txt or direct requests, explicitly license their work under Creative Commons terms if they want to permit AI use with attribution, negotiate directly with AI companies for compensation, archive their own work to maintain copies they control, and advocate for clearer legal standards about AI training rights. Many creators are also building direct relationships with audiences to maintain negotiating leverage over their work.

Ready to explore how modern tools streamline your workflow? Try Runable for AI-powered automation starting at $9/month—ideal for teams managing content, documentation, and knowledge preservation in the digital age.

Key Takeaways

Publishers like the New York Times, Guardian, and Financial Times are blocking Internet Archive access because they believe AI companies use the platform's API to circumvent copyright protections and obtain training data without permission
AI companies can potentially access archived content through the Internet Archive's public API even when they're blocked from directly crawling publisher websites, creating a technical loophole
Over 12 major copyright lawsuits have been filed by publishers against AI companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Perplexity, and Cohere, seeking billions in damages for unauthorized training data use
Blocking the Internet Archive harms legitimate research, historical documentation, and academic access while raising fundamental questions about balancing creator rights with digital preservation
Alternative solutions exist including licensing deals (like Times-OpenAI), tiered access systems, metadata-based restrictions, and statutory licensing that could address both creator compensation and preservation needs