[dorchadas]

Here is a comment on Reddit [1], from the copyright person cited in this article [2] about the legality of it. From what I can gather, libraries scanned books that didn't have digital copies already made, and offered them to patrons to "check out". They used software to make sure that they only checked out a total combined digital/print number equal to the number of print copies they had bought, with software to make sure they couldn't be copied. That seems fair, to me (and is, apparently, legal). The National Emergency Library basically opens that up to anyone now, however, with no limits on how many times a book can be checked out at once.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_...

[2]https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-eme...

[dannyw]

It is not 'apparently legal'. Ars' writers did an investigation, including talking to some independent attorneys, and the summary is that what they're doing is on shaky ground and likely to be ruled illegal. They are simply banking on authors not suing.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...

[labster]

The authors are welcome to sue when the civil courts reopen in California, which may be a few months in the future, and already something of a fait accompli. It’s kind of like The Purge out here, albeit with felonies still illegal but most laws unenforceable and people sheltering inside in fear.

[geofft]

They're making a fair use claim through the duration of the national emergency. The blog post and the linked statement of support alludes to it a bit more clearly: http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...