Physical libraries lend actual physical objects. They don't copy anything. This is a copyright case.
loading story #41451841
The effect on authors is the same: A book is circulated multiple times after being bought once.
loading story #41450534
That's not how the law works. Again: this is a copyright case.
I don't think people here are confused about how the law works. I think many people here feel the law shouldn't work that way.
Stating it explicitly: while the NEL was dubious, CDL should have been 100% legal, and it's a massive disappointment to see it ruled against.
Maybe a case with a better fact pattern (for instance: lending only books without competing publisher epubs) might have had a better chance, but I think people are getting themselves tied up in knots about IA's intent, which is just one factor in a fair-use analysis. The law cares deeply about copies, not about circulation or access.
Further: it seems weird to blame judges for applying what is in fact very straightforward law. Seems like your problem is with Congress!
loading story #41451101
> I don't think people here are confused about how the law works. I think many people here feel the law shouldn't work that way.
No, a LOT of people in these very threads are arguing that the CDL IS 100% legal and that the ruling is ... well, many things.