![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
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.
I’m going to agree with you 100% but offer an anecdote, my lg tv has an hdmi 2.0 port but didn’t support Dolby vision at 120 hz out of the box. After an update, it now supports it. Should LG have had that ready to go by the time of manufacture ? Maybe. With design and manufacturing timelines maybe the spec wasn’t ready to implement by the time needed. Is Samsung going to use this to enshitify the tv? Maybe. But the time from design, to manufacture, to retail is such a long process there are cases where a feature update can be justified