Yup. Worse, people told them what that meant in terms of risk and begged them to reconsider, for the benefit of the larger archive. And even worse, it was an e

Yup. Worse, people told them what that meant in terms of risk and begged them to reconsider, for the benefit of the larger archive. And even worse, it was an epic strategic blunder. A campaign of "in this emergency, we would love to share books, but publishers don't agree" would've put massive pressure on publishers. They could've had a shot at advancing the legal situation of digital lending. Instead they opted for a publicity stunt. Yes, sure, people couldn't go to libraries. That's when you collaborate with Project Gutenberg to address the actual need for reading material, highlight great free books, and keep hammering "and we could also lend you XYZ, if publishers only worked with us". Then you reach out to publishers like Tor, who are already leaning further on the "unencumbered access" spectrum. And work out a deal with them. Promoting their books in return for larger lending count. Giving people the opportunity to buy additional copies for the digital library. (There's plenty of folks in the donor list) And you continue saying "Hachette, HC, Wiley, and Penguin still don't want you to read their books". Yes, what they did was the most idealistic approach. Sometimes, pragmatism is better in the long run.