[kmeisthax]

Internet Archive used Adobe DRM to specifically enforce the exact same rental period that a physical book would have. So while you might be right legally, you aren't correct morally.

The "assault on the concept of a library" thing isn't from this specific lawsuit, but just general publisher behavior. The publishers want libraries to become a shittier Netflix for books - i.e. the last rung on a very tall windowing[0] ladder, with them being paid per rental and books being able to be pulled from circulation at a whim. This is Literally Nineteen Eighty-Four.

A good parallel for this would be the Epic v. Apple lawsuit. Legally speaking, there was no way in hell a private company was going to get standing for an expansive, Stallmanesque antitrust lawsuit against the very bedrock of platform capitalism. And morally, Epic is a worse company than Apple. However, practically speaking, their ability to get discovery woke every legislative body up to a lot of industry dirty laundry. The EU Digital Markets Act would not have passed without Epic v. Apple airing all that out.

If IA is able to get discovery, they could do something similar for book publishing. Just put all that dirty laundry out in front of the public and let them make sense of it.

[0] The practice of releasing creative works in stages. Think like how movies go from theaters, to home video, to rental or streaming, to airplanes, in roughly that order.