I think this gets into the usual what's right versus what's illegal. I think you can construct a thoughtful argument that IA's Emergency Library provided more

I think this gets into the usual what's right versus what's illegal. I think you can construct a thoughtful argument that IA's Emergency Library provided more of a service to the public than it cost publishers/authors, and that it was the right thing to do because of that. People are alone and depressed and need something to lift their spirits, kids aren't in school and need to learn, etc, etc. We all gave things up for the common good during COVID. The effects on publishers and authors weren't ideal, but no part of COVID was. There's an orthogonal question of whether what they did was legal, and it's much harder to make a salient argument that it was. > So the argument is that because it's an emergency and temporary, they can go on an approximation instead of having to do the exact accounting during the emergency situation. This doesn't have any legal basis that I'm aware of. Individuals and organizations don't get to decide whether an emergency deserves loosening of laws. The intent is that Congress would do that (not that I think recent Congresses would be capable of reaching an agreement, but that's the intent). Congress would say "yep, this is an emergency and getting reading material to people is important, so we're loosening lending rules for X months". The system is dysfunctional, but it's still not going to let IA decide how the rules apply to them. I think the best case, and what I'm hoping for, is that the judge recognizes that IA was trying to do something good for the public and that they get a "don't do that again" slap on the wrist. Give them a fine, force them to work with publishers on some kind of auditing system for the lending, and let them get back to their work. It's important work, even if they occasionally overstep their bounds.