See the relevant bit of the law here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
Of particular relevance is subsection (g) which explicitly states distributing the one copy permitted under this law multiple times simultaneously is illegal.
Of particular relevance is subsection (g) which explicitly states distributing the one copy permitted under this law multiple times simultaneously is illegal.
So I'm a bit confused.
But the interactions of tradition, legal precedents, and different laws in different places are complicated, and subject to interpretation & various shifting balances-of-considerations!
That's why it's silly when armchair opinionators casually judge, "IA clearly did something wrong". There's a lot of room in the law for fair-use copying, even against the rightsholders' strongest wishes, and especially for librarylike activities.
>(1)is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time,
TL;DR: If you make more than one copy of a physical copy you have rights to and/or distribute that copy or copies multiple times simultanenously, the protections granted by this law do not apply.
This law only protects public libraries if they make one and only one copy and distribute (lend) that copy out once at a time on separate occasions.
There are clauses in this law permitting up to three copies in other circumstances, but those are not immediately relevant for this conversation.