I don't understand the outrage here. It sounds like a clear case of copyright infringement with IA profiting from the works of others. Can someone explain the issue?
For me, the outrage is really about the fact that the greater good is clearly (IMHO) served by IA operating like they do (one simultaneous lend per held copy). So copyright law is wrong.
And I know it's not the judge's place to say that.
If they drop copyright to 15 years and IA stops lending books younger than that, I'd be 100% OK with that outcome, as well. But copyright terms are in the "lifetimes" range, so lending books out that are still under copyright serves the greater good.
But since the odds of the US switching to the metric system are about 1000x greater than the odds of us decreasing copyright terms, I'm not holding my breath.
