> If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive decided unilaterally that they would do this due to many libraries being closed.
Exactly.
It's not even clear that "controlled digital lending" is in compliance with copyright law[1].
The NEL or "uncontrolled digital lending" is almost certainly not in compliance with the copyright statutes.
___
1. It's not specifically allowed, and there hasn't been any case law on it. To see arguments for controlled digital lending, go here: https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper
> Our principal legal argument for controlled digital lending is that fair use— an “equitable rule of reason”—permits libraries to do online what they have always done with physical collections under the first sale doctrine: lend books
http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds...
They are saying digital is equivalent to physical which is the same exact argument vidangel tried and lost a year or two ago
If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive decided unilaterally that they would do this due to many libraries being closed.
I (not in the US) do not remember any changes to the copyright act being passed to allow this.
Edit to add: They offered this globally and therefore disregarded any laws in countries which have already settled this issue. (Hint: to my knowledge not in a way that favors their interpretation)