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.
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.
None of those ways are innovative.
More on the order of $40/yr.
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/public-life/pub...
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.
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.
In most countries around the world libraries pay a license for loaned out books, so not really.
