I think there are definite gray areas here. One thought that comes to mind is - if your friend has a book and lends it to you, you're not paying for it. Sure they did, but what if that friend lends it out to just 1 friend. Thats ok right? What about 10 friends? Still probably acceptable and nobody would judge that person. What if that person lends the book to a different friend every month, every week - for the rest of their life? Now you're suddenly talking hundreds and thousands of readers benefitting from the book without paying for it. But also that is the fundamental concept of a library. A book is bought and read by masses - thousands - over the years of our lifetime - and even longer - its lifetime. Someone buying a book and putting the content online for other readers is considered piracy, while at the library its considered a friendly community building neighborhood activity and government funded institution. I'm not trying to condemn one thing nor the other, just to shine a light on the interesting paradigms created with how our society views and labels things that inherently seem quite related when boiled down to the logistics. If piracy is wrong, i.e. reading a book you didn't pay for, when is it ok to lend your ownership and when is it not? Is it about the amount of people who it can be lent to? Does it have to be government funded? What makes it right and what makes it wrong? Just pondering :)