Note that the California State Library system provided some funding for the archive.org Open Library project, recognizing that it was for the common good. I doubt they would fund something they believed was an inherently illegal piracy project.

Here's an interesting older article with some helpful background about the project, written back when it was just getting going:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...g-program.html

Clearly it's a thorny issue, and a larger one faced not just by archive.org but also by any library that lends ebooks. How do you fulfill on a non-profit library's mission to curate and provide information at low/no cost for everybody, while still ensuring that authors/publishers are paid for their intellectual property? I like that Open Library is trying to push the boundaries of that discussion. This industry NEEDS to be pushed, IMO, like the music industry of old that exercised way too much control over distribution. If it turns out that their approach has to be clarified in a legal decision--for example, saying they have to move to a pay-per-usage-licensing model like a lot of bricks and mortar libraries do for ebooks--then so be it. It'll clarify things, cost them more money, and slow down their distribution. But I don't accept that their intent, or their practice as an organization, is to pirate content or deprive authors of their intellectual property.

ETA: Look at this perfect example of the trade-off issues between access versus control of distribution.
https://www.boston.com/news/technolo...to-lend-ebooks

The Mass state libraries are trying to increase access, using the advantages of digital content because they can keep a few centralized copies. And they're intentionally trying to push the boundaries: "'Our intended purpose is to change the playing field and to increase the availability of content to Massachusetts libraries,’ MLS president Gregory Pronevitz says."