The official Anna’s Archive Reddit account, AnnaArchivist, has responded to an r/AnnasArchive post linking the same Torrent Freak article:

Thanks! We’re not making any public statements about this lawsuit but rest assured we’re fine.

Regarding the operating location(s) of Anna’s Archive, OCLC is alleging the following (pages 7-9):

C. Defendants Rely on Sophisticated Technology and Online Practices to Conceal their Identities.

Defendants understand that their pirate library enterprise and related activities, here, hacking and harvesting OCLC’s WorldCat® records, are illegal. Id. ¶¶ 11, 65, PageID 3, 11. Defendants admit that they are engaging in and facilitating mass copyright infringement, stating, “[w]e deliberately violate the copyright law in most countries.” Id. ¶ 67 PageID 12. In another blog post, Defendants noted that their activities could lead to arrest and “decades of prison time.”1 Defendants have also recognized that their hacking and distribution of OCLC’s data is improper, acknowledging that WorldCat® is a “proprietary database,” that OCLC’s “business model requires protecting their database,” and that Defendants are “giving it all away. :-).” Compl. ¶ 90, Dkt. 1 at PageID 16.

Because Defendants understand their actions infringe on copyright laws, amongst others, Defendants go to great lengths to remain anonymous to ensure both that Anna’s Archive’s domains are not taken down and to avoid the legal consequences of their actions, including civil lawsuits where parties like OCLC seek to vindicate their rights, as well as criminal and regulatory enforcement actions undertaken by government entities. None of Anna’s Archive’s domains or its online blog provide a business address, business contact, or other contact information that would be found on a legitimate entity’s website. See Kim Decl.¶ 9, attached here as Exhibit 1.

Defendants have explained in a blog post that they are “being very careful not to leave any trace [of their online activities], and having strong operational security.”2 For instance, Anna’s Archive utilizes a VPN with “[a]ctual court-tested no-log policies with long track records of protecting privacy.”3 Each of the Anna’s Archive domains are registered using foreign hosts, registrars, and registrants in order to conceal the identity of the site operators. Kim Decl. ¶¶ 7–8. Additionally, Defendants rely on multiple proxy servers to maintain anonymity.4 Defendants also use a free version of Cloudflare, a top-level hosting provider, so that they do not have to provide any payment or other identifying information.5 See also Kim Decl. ¶ 6. Defendants selected Cloudflare because they claim Cloudflare has resisted requests to take down websites for copyright infringement.6 The individuals behind Anna’s Archive also use usernames as pseudonyms to mask their identities online. Compl. ¶ 65, Dkt. 1 at PageID 11.

Through the work of a cyber security and digital forensic investigation firm, OCLC was able to identify one of the individuals behind Anna’s Archive by name and locate a United States address, Defendant Maria Dolores Anasztasia Matienzo.7 However, the physical address and contact information of Anna’s Archive and the identities and contact information of the John Does remain unknown. See id. ¶ 6–11. It is highly likely that Anna’s Archive is a non-domestic, foreign entity, based on the findings from OCLC’s investigator, as set forth below. See id.

OCLC explained the above in their Motion To Serve Defendant Anna’s Archive By Email, as justification for why they seek “permission to serve Anna’s Archive by alternative means, here, email, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and (f)(3).”

As to how Anna’s Archive accomplished their data scraping, this is what OCLC is claiming (see page 62-63):

These attacks were accomplished with bots (automated software applications) that “scraped” and harvested data from WorldCat.org and other WorldCat®-based research sites and that called or pinged the server directly. These bots were initially masked to appear as legitimate search engine bots from Bing or Google.

To scrape or harvest the data on WorldCat.org, the bots searched WorldCat.org results, running a script based on OCN for individual JavaScript Object Notation, or “JSON,” records. As a result, WorldCat® data including freely accessible and enriched data, such as OCNs, were scraped from individual results on WorldCat.org.

The bots also harvested data from WorldCat.org by pretending to be an internet browser, directly calling or “pinging” OCLC’s servers, and bypassing the search, or user interface, of WorldCat.org. More robust WorldCat® data was harvested directly from OCLC’s servers, including enriched data not available through the WorldCat.org user interface.

Finally, WorldCat® data was harvested from a member’s website incorporating WorldCat® Discovery Services, a subscription-based variation of WorldCat.org that is available only to a member’s patrons. Again, the hacker pinged OCLC’s servers to harvest WorldCat® records directly from the servers. To do this through WorldCat® Discovery Services/FirstSearch, the hacker obtained and used the member’s credentials to authenticate the requests to the server as a member library.

From WorldCat® Discovery Services, hackers harvested 2 million richer WorldCat® records that included data not available in WorldCat.org. This hacking method resulted in the harvesting of some of OCLC’s most proprietary fields of WorldCat® data.

These hacking attacks materially affected OCLC’s production systems and servers, requiring around-the-clock efforts from November 2022 to March 2023 to attempt to limit service outages and maintain the production systems’ performance for customers. To respond to these ongoing attacks, OCLC spent over 1.4 million dollars on its systems’ infrastructure and devoted nearly 10,000 employee hours to the same.

Despite OCLC’s best efforts, OCLC’s customers experienced many significant disruptions in paid services during the aforementioned period as a result of the attacks on WorldCat.org, requiring OCLC to create system workarounds to ensure services functioned.

During this time, customers threatened and likely did cancel their products and services with OCLC due to these disruptions.

Because OCLC had to combat these persistent hacking attacks, OCLC was forced to divert existing personnel and resources from OCLC’s other products and services. As a result, OCLC’s development and improvements to other products and services were delayed and limited.

OCLC has devoted, at various times, ten or more employees to respond to and mitigate the harm from these attacks from October 2022 to present.

Here are the court filings if anyone would like to read them:

archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287709/

The following is a link to the docket (which the above link draws from), so people can follow the progress of the lawsuit:

courtlistener.com/…/oclc-online-computer-library-…