Their official argument is: > [Readers] don’t have access to the books that only exist in paper, sitting inaccessible on their library shelves. That’s where ou

Their official argument is: > [Readers] don’t have access to the books that only exist in paper, sitting inaccessible on their library shelves. That’s where our collection fits in — we offer digital access to books, many of which are otherwise unavailable to the public while our schools and libraries are closed http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme... They make explicit reference to these inaccessible books to justify why they are distributing more copies than they own. I agree with your point about digital media being intrinsically different than physical media, especially when it comes to marginal costs of publication/dissemination. Ownership and possession of a physical copy of a book is a good proxy for a license to use the book, and copyright law was largely built around that premise. Controlled Digital Lending seems to be a good way to adopt the same principles for the digital age. IA was using CDL prior to its emergency library, and I had no problem with that. I also don't think lenders need to have a physical copy sitting around somewhere to be able to lend a digital copy. Publishers' onerous licensing terms for digital content have been met with deserved criticism. A CDL system that permits ownership of either physical or digital copies seems like the right approach.