3 ms·
> If you're not lending more copies than you have, how is that not a reasonable argument? That's the crux of the problem, though. The Internet Archive original
by chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> If you're not lending more copies than you have, how is that not a reasonable argument?
That's the crux of the problem, though. The Internet Archive originally followed that model making that very argument; that argument hasn't actually been tested in court and the legality of it isn't settled, but publishers were generally looking the other way. But in March, the IA lifted the limit, allowing an unlimited number of people to read the same book on the grounds that closing physical libraries created a national emergency.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoI somehow doubt that they actually lent books to an unlimited number of people, since an unlimited number of people don't exist. So then you get into questions like, did they actually lend out more copies than exist in all the libraries that are physically closed? Probably not, right? Probably not even close to that. So that's an interesting question on something like digital inter-library loans. And we still haven't heard their response, only what the plaintiffs are claiming.