2 ms·
> What they did here was remove that restriction and loan out an unlimited number of simultaneous copies of a given book Again: no; that's not what this appeal
by cxr 3y ago
> What they did here was remove that restriction and loan out an unlimited number of simultaneous copies of a given book
Again: no; that's not what this appeal or the article is about. What Publisher's Weekly is reporting on here is their controlled digital lending program and the court's decision that found that was illegal—not the "National Emergency Library".
- didntcheck 3y agoWhich would most likely not have happened had they not intentionally kicked the hornet's nest
- cxr 3y agoYou're moving the goalposts. Your description of the present issue ("What they did here was remove that restriction and loan out an unlimited number of simultaneous copies of a given book") is inaccurate and misleading. That's not what this appeal is about.