IA seems to be arguing that society needs a way to archive and access all printed works.

The library model is one that has a long history and is therefore helpful as a way to accomplish that mission. The “controlled” part of controlled digital lending is only there as a way to try to appease rights-holders (who would otherwise argue in court that there should be no lending, only licensing (or not) under their complete control).

The unfortunate thing that happened is they decided upon themselves to freely and openly distribute copyrighted works at scale which is clearly prohibited and confirmed by precedent. This is the point that they should lose. No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask.

> which is clearly prohibited and confirmed by precedent

The "precedent" (pro copyright enforcement) has had unintended consequences to prior precendence (freedom of press...the literal printing press). Ignoring the battlefield of the limits of free speech is not constructive. Talking about past legal cases is not going to help in rolling back the dystopian eventuality.

> No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask.

It's obvious that they should not be allowed to do this perpetually or under normal circumstances. Why should they not be allowed to do it temporarily in an emergency? What existing case specifically addresses this?

It's not what case specifically addresses how it should be handled in an emergency but rather that there is no exception in copyright law for emergencies like a pandemic. If there's not an exception allowing a library to make unlimited copies during an emergency, they can't do it. It can be argued that there should be one added to the law but it doesn't change the fact that the IA clearly violated copyright laws when they lifted their Controlled Digital Lending restrictions.

I believe the issue was that they weren't doing controlled digital lending. They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally & then took donations for doing so. The original envision, where a book can be checked out digitally (and then is reserved until "returned", and mare available again), is way more defensible.

> They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally

You're referring to the emergency library, which only operated during COVID. The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works.

> & then took donations for doing so

Why should that be relevant unless a donation is required to get a copy? It seems like a bad faith argument to try to ensure that no one offering a free service to the public can solicit donations to continue operating it.

> The original envision, where a book can be checked out digitally (and then is reserved until "returned", and mare available again), is way more defensible.

Isn't the case about both?

> The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works.

While personally I think that this is a powerful goal, how would that work in practice? Who determines what an emergency is? Once an emergency is declared, does everyone get the legal ability to seed torrents of copyright works? Or stream them directly to the public? If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. What safeguards would need to be in place?

Who determines what is an emergency is the judge. If you guess wrong you lose, but some cases are clearer than others. If a global pandemic that shuts down the economy isn't an emergency then what is?

> If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good.

The entire premise is that it's temporary and therefore not likely to negatively impact them. But it's also obvious that media companies have a preexisting perverse incentive to over-hype any form of danger, so a countervailing force in the other direction would be a welcome balancing mechanism.

what did they do with the donation money? if they did something charitable with any extra profit i think it should be ok, because then all there is is good-intentioned activity.

It’s not normally the courts’ job to change the laws. People need to get Congress involved. I doubt very few people write to their representatives about fair use.

The entire question is whether any change to the law is necessary. The courts created fair use to begin with and it has been codified by Congress in the statute for decades. Congress doesn't need to change anything if this is already fair use, so why shouldn't it be?

What is codified as legally fair use is extremely limited, and the limited changes to account for digital copies has mostly favored publishers. The terms of fair use should be updated and broadened.

What is codified as legally fair use is extremely squishy. It's the kind of multi-factor balancing test that lets the courts do whatever they think is right.

The problem is that's also the sort of thing corporations abuse to set bad precedents, by constantly nibbling away at the edges with expensive lawyers, and filing suit against defendants with far fewer resources.

This is why "according to corporate PR, what the defendant did was bad and wrong" should always be viewed with heavy skepticism. They're always going to choose a case where they can try to paint the defendant as the villain. And yet, we know who are the ones twirling their mustache.

Courts created fair use in the first place