This is cope and ex post facto butt-covering. pie_flavor's point is that OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable. Whether CDL being affected is a side effect or not of the lawsuit is beside the point.
Re:Let Readers Read
by boomboomsubban on Friday June 21, 2024 @08:27PM
(#40755197)
This is nonsense. Publishers had been building up to attack CDL for years, and your argument that "as you committed this illegal act, this other legal act is now a crime for everybody" makes absolutely zero sense.
The emergency library made them legally vulnerable over that act, this lawsuit is not about that act.
> OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable
According to the plaintiffs and the judge who agreed with them, controlled digital lending was always illegal and they always had grounds to sue. So it did not make them "legally vulnerable."
I could see it argued that it made them "rhetorically vulnerable" and that's why the publishers took this particular moment to sue, but your statement is in contradiction with the plaintiffs and judge.
It is not. The judge ruled the CDL, their original system, was illegal, and the only mention of the period where they removed the limits was saying basically "as controlled digital lending was already illegal, the pandemic actions were also illegal."