> They decided to loan out digital assets without any regard to the backed licenses available.

No, they loan out a digital copy, protected by DRM, of an asset that they physically own.

The idea that only the publisher could produce an e-book version of a paper book for public distribution protected by DRM, and that the e-book version needs to be licensed, is completely ludicrous.

If they only went after the emergency library then fine—I am curious, and the judge is too, how they would've computed monetary damages, but that was clearly a copyright violation. But shutting down CDL altogether would be a lot darker.

Fun fact, the only time I used the IA to borrow a book I ended up buying it. But it was out of print, so I bought it used and the publisher didn't see a dime. Based on this case I think they wouldn't have deserved it anyway.

I do not have any particular opinion on this. However, do you think it would be OK for the IA, or another entity, to purchase a physical book, create an audio book from it, and lend the audiobook in a manner similar to what the IA is doing now? Regardless of your opinion, the "transformation" of this matter is effectively what the plaintiff is arguing against with respect to paper book to digital book.

If the answer ends up being that it's fine (I imagine in either scenario it will end up being appealed to near the Supreme court), it would have pretty interesting implications.

Creating + lending an audiobook should be fine, the same as creating an ebook. As long as only 1 copy is loaned out per physical item owned (can't loan the ebook if someone has the audiobook), I don't see the difference. What if they create a physical braille version and loan that out to blind people? 1-to-1 lending should be acceptable in any case.

They probably went after the 'core function' along with the 'emergency library' as a negotiating tactic, to achieve a satisfactory settlement which would shut down the EL quickly and permanently. Perhaps unfortunately, the IA refused to make that deal, so the whole thing is going to court, with somewhat unpredictable results.

The IA are trying to drum up support by stating that the publishers want to destroy libraries, which obviously makes them sound really awful. But publishers just want the IA to stop offering their copyrighted works for free to anyone at all times without paying any kind of license fee, which is not how a library works.

It is how a library works if the books are printed on paper. Or parchment or papyrus, I guess.

But if the books are digital, suddenly it becomes magically illegal to do anything without consent of the publisher because it now violates copyright to give your copy to somebody else. And the publisher is arguing that it's morally reprehensible for someone to attempt to build a digital equivalent to lending for physical books.

A library is able to lend out physical books because it bought the books. The publisher got paid when the book was purchased. Plus only one person can borrow a given physical library book at a time.

As noted by several other people here, the IA's model of e-lending only allows one person to borrow the ebook at a time, and that is the model that the lawsuit is trying to shut down. (There was a period of 12 weeks where the lending was unlimited, but that period ended 2½ years ago, and this lawsuit isn't over that period but the program as a whole.) IA also bought the books from the publishers. So the only real difference is that IA digitized the book itself and lent out the digital copy.

The fact that a library can lend out a physical book, but not a scanned copy of a book, with all else being equal (having paid for the books, one person borrowing a copy per paid for book) is a blatant power grab by publishers, who have never liked libraries but couldn't really do anything about them before.

You keep saying this, but it's not true: they only allow one borrower of any work at a time.

This really does mirror the Library model, but on the internet.

Sort of. The publishers have always hated the concept. They simply never chose to file any lawsuit until the National Emergency Library came about. The trouble with lawsuits is they might be ruled the other way, providing explicit precedent that something is allowed (such as in 2013 when the Supreme Court ruled that importing and selling international editions of textbooks is legal). Sometimes the threat of litigation has a stronger chilling effect than actual litigation. But not here—IA saw an opportunity to push the boundaries, and took it. And the publishers probably think uncontrolled digital lending is an easier battle to win than controlled digital lending.

The plaintiffs argued against Controlled Digital Lending specifically today. Publishers are indeed trying to win the harder battle in an effort to shut down not just IA's digital lending, but all libraries'.

No, that was probably what pushed them over the edge, but the lawsuit also claims that transforming a physical work to a new medium without consent is illegal.

(For example, libraries are not allowed to convert their VHS collection to DVD and lend them out)

Yeah that was a huge mistake on their part and may have cost them an otherwise excellent cause.

It may also end up with the judge explicitly allowing CDL and slapping them on the wrist for uncontrolled lending. That would be like winning the lottery but it's not impossible.

If the IA wins, I'm going to set up a website where you can borrow music from my CD collection. I have four copies of The Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil and I'm glad that I'll be able to provide free access to this classic work.

As another lawsuit has shown, that would count as a public performance of the album and you'd end up with ASCAP sending you massive bills at the very least.

I'm not performing the music, I'm only transmitting it to other people. It's up to ASCAP to go after them.