> No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask.
It's obvious that they should not be allowed to do this perpetually or under normal circumstances. Why should they not be allowed to do it temporarily in an emergency? What existing case specifically addresses this?
It's not what case specifically addresses how it should be handled in an emergency but rather that there is no exception in copyright law for emergencies like a pandemic. If there's not an exception allowing a library to make unlimited copies during an emergency, they can't do it. It can be argued that there should be one added to the law but it doesn't change the fact that the IA clearly violated copyright laws when they lifted their Controlled Digital Lending restrictions.
It's obvious that they should not be allowed to do this perpetually or under normal circumstances. Why should they not be allowed to do it temporarily in an emergency? What existing case specifically addresses this?