> Have they been sued over digital lending in general or because they lent out more digital copies then they owned physically?
The publishers are suing over both, though the lawsuit was rather obviously prompted by the latter (ie. The National Emergency Library).
Meanwhile, the IA is pretending (or implying) in its public statements that the lawsuit is only about CDL in general and eliding or minimizing the role the NEA had in poking the publishers hard enough that they pulled the trigger on this lawsuit.
It shouldn't be particularly surprising, given the adversarial nature of the court system, that the publishers, once they decided that the NEA gave them sufficient ammunition to prevail in court, would decide as a tactical matter to tar CDL in general with the same brush. I mean, why wouldn't they make their claims as broad and expansive as possible?
Nor is it surprising that the IA is desperately trying to walk their misstep back with oh-so-careful statements without actually acknowledging that the NEA was a bad move on their part.
What is surprising is that the IA so readily handed the publishers this pretext in the first place.
True. And the tragedy is had they actually tried to raise the money to buy all the books they needed, they probably could have kept waitlists to nearly zero and avoided this whole situation.
The publishers are suing over both, though the lawsuit was rather obviously prompted by the latter (ie. The National Emergency Library).
Meanwhile, the IA is pretending (or implying) in its public statements that the lawsuit is only about CDL in general and eliding or minimizing the role the NEA had in poking the publishers hard enough that they pulled the trigger on this lawsuit.
It shouldn't be particularly surprising, given the adversarial nature of the court system, that the publishers, once they decided that the NEA gave them sufficient ammunition to prevail in court, would decide as a tactical matter to tar CDL in general with the same brush. I mean, why wouldn't they make their claims as broad and expansive as possible?
Nor is it surprising that the IA is desperately trying to walk their misstep back with oh-so-careful statements without actually acknowledging that the NEA was a bad move on their part.
What is surprising is that the IA so readily handed the publishers this pretext in the first place.