The archive.org story was more nuanced than that. If I recall correctly the full story was that they used to lend digital versions of books they physically bought and scanned with DRM to enforce a sort of one to one at a time restriction.

But during covid archive.org decided to just remove the limit and lend unlimited copies concurrently which started the debacle with the publishers.

Publishers don't care if rare books get shredded?

> Publishers should be more careful what they wish for. you think they don't like people destroying their books? if you destroy a book, that increases the value of the others and the unpublished holdings (unfortunately)

[dead]

> That's why archive.org should have never been sued for lending books they had physical copy of. This is the result

How are these things remotely related? If anything, Archive.org’s callous, thoughtless approach nuked the hands of legitimate archival efforts.