With the usual tendency to distort copyright arguments, Doctorow claims AC “come out against the interlibrary loan system, because it is digital” when what they actually oppose not the ILL system of moving books around, but rather the potential in the bill to allow libraries to scan books and then “loan” the copy to other libraries. Compare his rant with AC’s real statement:

Access Copyright is greatly concerned by the expansion of the interlibrary loan exception provided for in both Bill C-60 and Bill C-61, which would have allowed librarians to digitize print material and then send a copy electronically to a library patron through an “interlibrary loan”. With library catalogues easily searchable on-line, a person in Prince George, BC can send an interlibrary request for a work to the public library in Toronto, ON and the public library in Toronto can email a digital copy of the work. On the one hand, access to works is greatly enhanced, but on the other hand, the already small niche library market for printed works has suddenly become much smaller. At the extreme, only one library needs to purchase a work so that library patrons across the country can have access to it. And all of this, without remuneration to the copyright owner, except for the purchase of that first and only copy.