[SamBam]

I don't understand the meaning of the word "stolen" in this context.

I've never seen a LFL with explicit rules on who can or cannot take out the books, or what they're allowed to do with the books afterward.

If someone sees "all the good books," are they not allowed to want all the good books? What if they take them and don't get around to reading them, are they stealing them?

I understand that there's a potential tragedy of the commons with a LFL, but if I put some of my books in one, am not going to worry about whether they're being read the "right" way. Mostly I'm happy to have had a place to donate my books, and figure there's a non-zero chance they'll be read again.

[eudamoniac]

It means taken with the intent to resell, not to read.

[SamBam]

Sure, but how do you honestly know that? Is it based on the profile of the person you see looking through them? Some people don't look like they should be readers? Or the fact that the "good ones" -- the ones that people presumably want to read -- get taken?

I guess I'm happier not getting angry over things that I don't know for sure, I'm happier generally assuming the best of my neighbors, and I accept that the books are out of my control once I drop them off at the library.

[eudamoniac]

Well first of all if thirty books disappear in one day, that's probably an inorganic usage. If none of them ever reappear, that's another indicator. And then if the person you see taking thirty books is dressed in rags with a shopping cart, you can be pretty confident.

Or maybe OP just means that none of them ever return; it's supposed to be a LF Library after all, not a LF bookshelf.

[SamBam]

Huh, I've literally never heard of someone before thinking it's supposed to be a library that you return books to. Must be different attitudes in different places. I've always seen people treat it as a swap-shop. Take some books you want, and some other day drop off some books you want to give away.

[wccrawford]

Both are okay. Returning or just keeping, as long as you aren't excessive. You aren't supposed to just take all the "good" ones, no matter if you're keeping or selling.

And there's an unspoken rule that you should probably give back, too. It's a community good, not a charity.

[gosub100]

I don't understand how it's bad to pirate a book, but fine to freely give one away. Both deprive the author of a sale. Either they should both be allowed or both be prohibited.

[SamBam]

Same reason you're allowed to gift your gold watch to someone, or sell your car.

Both of them do potentially deprive the creator of a sale, but they keep the same total number of things in circulation.

Sure, you can argue that philosophically it comes to the same thing, but the problem is that, if you win that argument, the powers that be are more likely to ban giving away things you own than they are to allow piracy...

[gosub100]

Interesting idea, but isn't the value of a book derived from the entertainment or reference usage? If I enjoy a story, the transaction is complete. I paid my money, got my product, consumed it , and now I can get another. If I transfer it to someone, the content is potentially consumed twice, but only one payment was made to the author. "Can't have your cake and eat it too - except for books"