[rcoveson]

The judge barely has to argue; the law on this seems totally clear-cut[0]. 108(c)(2) says:

> ...any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.

My understanding is that controlled digital lending is its own thing, with its own procedures and licenses. What IA did here was come up with its own controlled digital lending scheme based on ownership of print copies.

This doesn't look like one of those tense cases where judges add to the law with rulings that involve reading in-between the lines. This looks like a case where the judge read the law, saw that the law discussed exactly what the defendent did, and so ruled according to the law.

0. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

[musicale]

> "is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives"

This seems 1) at odds with the point of a library and 2) a death knell for CDL.

Assuming that is the correct interpretation, then the law is pretty obnoxious in terms of preventing libraries from format shifting their collections from physical to digital.

It doesn't seem like good public policy to:

1) Try to make digital copies less portable and usable than their physical counterparts

2) Prevent libraries from converting their physical - or digital - lending collections from one format to another

[rcoveson]

It sucks, but the courtroom is not the place to change it when it’s spelled out so plainly. The judge would’ve been wrong to rule any other way.