I wonder if they were always planning to bring the concept of CDL to court and this was a good way to provoke that while not making it too easy to be painted as feckless pirates by the plaintiffs (they were just trying to help in a national crisis, you know?).
CDL seems a common sense process, inasmuch as copyright can be said to be sensible. If I own a book, I can show it to others, even electronically, but only to one person at time, and I don't look at it while showing it, so I'm not actually increasing the copies in circulation. Most normal (as in, not familiar with IP law) people would probably agree that that seems a reasonable way for a library to operate, since that's fundamentally how normal libraries do operate (except for the electronic bit). Those weird DVD-ripping jukeboxes that locked the data and/or discs down are similar too, and they were declared legal.
However, making sense is not required under the law: the concept has (apparently, according to the plaintiffs) never been actually legally tested. It is in the IA's interest to actually test it, as getting it legally proven to be a valid way to run a library would be revolutionary: any library could suddenly lend their legally-held holdings digitally without legal clouds around them. It would also put the IA's massive CDL system on a solid footing.
Meanwhile, proving it illegal would raise difficult questions over what it means to own even a physical item. As a form of accelerationism, that can work to the IA's advantage too, by shining a light on the fact that you, yes you, actually do not really own a book in that it's illegal to lend it in certain ways.
Either way, the outcome will be very interesting, though it'll be far better if CDL comes out as allowed.
CDL seems a common sense process, inasmuch as copyright can be said to be sensible. If I own a book, I can show it to others, even electronically, but only to one person at time, and I don't look at it while showing it, so I'm not actually increasing the copies in circulation. Most normal (as in, not familiar with IP law) people would probably agree that that seems a reasonable way for a library to operate, since that's fundamentally how normal libraries do operate (except for the electronic bit). Those weird DVD-ripping jukeboxes that locked the data and/or discs down are similar too, and they were declared legal.
However, making sense is not required under the law: the concept has (apparently, according to the plaintiffs) never been actually legally tested. It is in the IA's interest to actually test it, as getting it legally proven to be a valid way to run a library would be revolutionary: any library could suddenly lend their legally-held holdings digitally without legal clouds around them. It would also put the IA's massive CDL system on a solid footing.
Meanwhile, proving it illegal would raise difficult questions over what it means to own even a physical item. As a form of accelerationism, that can work to the IA's advantage too, by shining a light on the fact that you, yes you, actually do not really own a book in that it's illegal to lend it in certain ways.
Either way, the outcome will be very interesting, though it'll be far better if CDL comes out as allowed.