FWIW I didn’t downvote you for this. I read the Ars article and saw the bit about them making it unlimited during the early pandemic days, but it seemed to imply that is was above board during other times. So if the whole case hinges on their actions during lockdown when people lost access to their own local libraries it becomes a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me personally. They broke the letter of the law, did they break the spirit of it? Was what they did immoral? The justice system isn’t perfect and as a society we continually refine and redefine our laws and have been forever. The state of Louisiana just signed a law into effect that requires poster sized copies of the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom, kindergarten through college. If someone breaks that law, what side of history will they be on?

If unlimited lending was something that IA was doing all the time, I can see it both ways. If it was for a few months during lockdown, then I think the court got this wrong.

(citation needed)

You know, I almost thought for a minute there was going to be a chance there was something cool behind it, like, “it can guide you to the exact location of a product that you’re looking for with x,y,z precision such as how AirTags work” or, “they look at data to optimize placement of items in the store to make it easier for people to find things efficiently” but it’s actually just another degree of shittyness. That stinks.

It really do be that way tho https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47713/