[krapp]

> There is no practical difference between a pirate library and a brick and mortar library, except the larger stock of books online.

Physical libraries purchase the books they own, own them legally, and can legally lend them out. The practical difference between the two couldn't be more stark - physical libraries operate within the law, pirates operate in spite of it.

>My local library even has a photocopier.

They don't intend for you to use it to copy the books they lend you, though. There's a reason that libraries don't run printing presses in the back and only carry limited copies of a book - because they depend on copyright law for their survival.

[Dylan16807]

> Physical libraries purchase the books they own, own them legally, and can legally lend them out. The practical difference between the two couldn't be more stark - physical libraries operate within the law, pirates operate in spite of it.

The law is broken. There is no legal mechanism to lend out a digital file. That's the law's fault, not the lender's fault.

> libraries don't run printing presses in the back and only carry limited copies of a book

Now that is an important difference. But no one bothers trying to make a lend-only digital library because it's more difficult and no less illegal.

[Yetanfou]

> The law is broken. There is no legal mechanism to lend out a digital file. That's the law's fault, not the lender's fault.

Oh yes, there are laws covering lending out digital files. They might not have been written specifically for the purpose but they're used anyway. Lending out digital files is, as anyone who has an insight in the industry, fraught with all sorts of silly artificial restrictions. In Sweden it is actually much more expensive for a library to lend out a digital publication that a physical one, especially when the publication is recent and popular. Depending on the contract the library has with the publisher they'll have to buy a one-time license any time a publication is lent out, other contracts stipulate a fee per loan plus an artificial 'wear' limit on digital publications. In contrast a physical publication is bought once - at a higher price than that charged in a book shop - after which it can be lent out until it falls apart.

I do not borrow digital publications from the library for this reason. Where digital technology could be used to further the mission of libraries it is now used to counter them. How... very much expected. Fortunately there are alternatives, as mentioned in the article.

[syphilis2]

Maybe I'm not following the conversation correctly, but plenty of US libraries lend digital copies of books, audiobooks, movies, tv shows, etc.

[Dylan16807]

But they have to get special licenses, at the discretion of the copyright holder. They can't rely on the first sale doctrine.

[resf]

Imagine you go to Ancient Greece and tell them: "in the future there will be a library of over 1 million books and papers containing the knowledge of the world, that any person rich or poor can access from almost anywhere in the world"

Do you think their reaction will be: A) wonder that such a library can exist, or B) to tell you that it is not a library because of the flagrant copyright violations.

Libgen and scihub are among the most amazing products of humanity, that will receive a prominent place in human history. That they are illegal is an almost boring item of trivia.