This article doesn't mention controlled digital lending at all, what the entire lawsuit was about, and instead spends a significant chunk of the article on the national emergency library, a program that got like a one sentence mention in the judgment.
I think it was the catalyst for the whole lawsuit though. If they had done just CDL, then I think that the book companies would have just tolerated it.
It wasn't, the book publishers were clearly preparing the lawsuit for years before the NEL.
The logic doesn't even make sense, if their objection was to the NEL they would have sued over that and the lawsuit would have been over four years ago.
> It wasn't, the book publishers were clearly preparing the lawsuit for years before the NEL.
Even if that were true, they could have still been waiting for something like NEL to start the process, if nothing else to get the narrative on their side.
I'll agree that the NEL was a PR boon for this case, it's turned most of the discourse on this topic into people saying the IA deserved it for something unrelated to the case.
That's a different claim than "book publishers would have tolerated CDL without it."
Sure, fair enough, they were probably just waiting for the right time to pounce. The NEL was as good a time as any, but it was probably a matter of "when", not "if".
