> It’s a ruling that controlled digital lending is illegal. That’s not really true. One issue described explicitly in the decision is that the lending is mostl

> It’s a ruling that controlled digital lending is illegal. That’s not really true. One issue described explicitly in the decision is that the lending is mostly uncontrolled, and worse there’s evidence of it the defendant was aware of. The second issue is that the defendant isn’t using the first sale doctrine, their defense is fair use. Presumably the whole reason they decided to argue fair use is because they knew they weren’t adhering to the lending analogy, because they were aware they were effectively distributing copies, not just lending them.