[pawelk]

I don't think it was silly, but it was probably too rushed. As I said when it was announced, there is a valid, IMO, line of reasoning: as a digital library you can lend one digital copy per one physical book you have in your inventory. Before the lock down people could choose if they want to go get a physical copy or a digital one, but now they don't have a choice: their local library is closed and there are only so many options to borrow digital. This is where IA steps in and says: we will act as a proxy between you, and the physical copy of the book that is locked in the library you lost access to. When I say it was rushed I mean they could have implemented a system where any closed library would be able to submit their physical book inventory asking IA to act as a proxy, extending the number of digital copies backed 1:1 by physical ones. But instead of that Interned Archive decided that the locked down supply is effectively limitless, so let's just lend as many as people demand.

[rblatz]

Massive public copyright infringement was silly, and it put their whole very important operation at risk. If they at least went through the motions, and signed up the libraries like in your example that’s at least defensible in court.