But why do you say that? Kindle unlimited is a pretty similar to a library and many publishers support it and include their books. Yes, it costs something per month, but it's much less than the overhead costs for librarians, heat and a building. Many municipalities could actually save money by closing their libraries and giving everyone with an active library card a subscription to Kindle unlimited.
I'm not suggesting they do that. I like the old buildings. But it's important to note that copyright holders are coming up with many new and innovative ways to help readers get books and authors get paid.
there is a massive difference between a company selling a subscription service and the government using public money to provide free access to everyone with no strings attached
> Kindle unlimited is a pretty similar to a library and many publishers support it and include their books. Yes, it costs something per month, but it's much less than the overhead costs for librarians, heat and a building.
How much do you think you personally pay for libraries? 1 cent a year? Half a cent a year?
And it's not "many publishers support <a proprietary thing>", it's "libraries are obliged to have all books, and in many countries publishers are made by law to provide libraries with copies of their books".
> But it's important to note that copyright holders are coming up with many new and innovative ways to help readers get books and authors get paid.
This can be taken as being positive about piracy or negative about libraries. I think the real question is not which way I mean it but why does the average user see one as positive and the other as a negative, thus causing the conflict when the two are linked by this statement.
You are implying that two people reading the same physical book is piracy with your statement. With that kind of logic someone reading the same book twice that they only paid for once would be piracy if the author wished that they could have the book burnt after one read through.
The natural state of copyright is that it doesn't exist, it's only created because governments believe there is a benefit in enforcing it, be that benefit a greater production and distribution of works or more money in politicians pockets from lobbyists.
Implying that there is any legal copyright piracy is ridiculous as by it's definition the copyright does not extend to that area so there is no piracy. The closest you can come to the concept of legal piracy would be copyright privateering across legal jurisdictions.
