Libraries are specifically protected by US copyright law, according to one of the judges in the oral argument in this case:[0] >Well you know there's a statuto

Libraries are specifically protected by US copyright law, according to one of the judges in the oral argument in this case:[0] >Well you know there's a statutory carve-out for libraries, right? Congress made clear that there's an authorization for libraries to lend out the books. Is it totally obvious that if Congress didn't provide that carve-out that what libraries were doing, even if they scaled up, would fall under fair use? I'm not sure what statute this is but it seems to be U.S. Code 17 § 109[1] based on later discussion in that oral argument: >Can I ask a more basic question? So if Congress had not codified the first sale doctrine and didn't have Section 109 that authorizes libraries, and libraries only had to rely on the fair use doctrine Would it be obvious that you could do whatever you want with the physical book? It's not clear if this applies only to libraries or if the judge means anything that is like what a library does (ie. lending). The IA lawyer says "Section 109 says anyone, a library or not, can lend out a physical object physically." I think the issue is with converting the format from print to digital, which is only allowed for specific cases, as outlined in section 108, based on the discussion in the oral argument. [0] https://archive.org/details/20240628-appeal-oral-argument-second-circuit-88min https://archive.org/details/20240628-appeal-oral-argument-se... at 11:26 and later 40:21 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109