Generally when a party deliberately misrepresents an opponent's position like this, it's because their own position is legally fucked and they're trying to move

Generally when a party deliberately misrepresents an opponent's position like this, it's because their own position is legally fucked and they're trying to move the goalposts so that they have a chance. Alternatively, they've already assessed their chances at zero and are trying to lay the groundwork for an appeal. Reading through their response (the actual filing, not their press release about it), it appears that the IA has admitted to a number of claims [1] that would constitute copyright infringement, so it appears they're hoping either for a miracle or to take this to a higher court and try to get some sort of ruling that would dramatically alter copyright law in their favor. Neither is very likely to happen. [1] For example, they admit that their own founder and executive director stated that the IA didn't seek consent (i.e., a license) from IP owners prior to launching the uncontrolled lending program that is the National Emergency Library. With that admission alone, the judge could grant summary judgment for the publishers on at least a few claims prior to reaching the discovery stage.