I'd love to agree but as a matter of fact LibGen and Sci-Hub are (forced to be) "pirates" and they are more vulnerable to takedowns than other websites. So while I feel no need to maintain a local copy of Wikipedia, since I'm relatively certain that it'll be alive in the next decade, I cannot say the same about those two with the same certainty (not that I think there are any imminent threats to either, just reasoning a priori).
Surely that would act as a failsafe to your problem.
https://libgen.is/search.php?req=game+of+thrones&lg_topic=li...
Someone's going to prison eventually, like The Pirate Bay founders. It's only a matter of time.
Second, please provide a citation for the assertion that sharing copies of printed fiction erodes sales volume. At this point, one may assume that anything that helps to sell computer games and offline swag is cash-in-bank for content producers. Whether original authors get the same royalties is an interesting question.
Third, the former Soviet milieu probably isn't currently in the mood to cooperate with western law enforcement.
Their values are incompatible with LG, and all what's left similar is the external part of letting download books, without which there would be nothing useful to look at.
Yeah, and the herculean work is actually done outside such aggregators by myriads of smaller collections, digitizing, binding, processing, collecting, and channeling millions of handmade books into rivers of literature, for free and ready to grab. The growth is global and isn't relevant to what the forks do.
Sorry to tell.
This would be disastrous for preservation. Often the djvu versions have no digital version, the books not in print and the publisher isn't around. The djvu archives are often specifically because some old book, really has and had value to people.
DJVU is pretty clever in how it uses a mask layer for more efficient compression, and as far as I know, converting to PDF is always done "dumb" -- flattening the DJVU file into a single image and then encoding that image traditionally in PDF.
I wonder if it's possible to create a "lossless" DJVU to PDF converter, or something close to it, if the PDF primitives allow it? I'm not sure if they do, if the "mask layer" can be efficiently reproduced in PDF.
It won't be perfectly lossless, because the IW44 compression of the color layer will need to be recompressed as JPEG or JPEG2000. The JB2 mask layer can be losslessly recompressed as JBIG2 or CCITT G4 Fax.
It's not just about laziness preventing one from installing the more obscure ebook readers which support djvu. It's about security: I only trust PDFs when I create them myself with TeX or similar, otherwise I need to use the Chromium PDF reader to be (relatively) safe. I don't trust the readers that support Djvu to be robust enough against maliciously malformed djvu files, as I'm guessing the readers are implemented in some ancient dialect of C or C++ and I doubt they're getting much if any scrutiny in the way of security.
And since you're creating the PDF yourself seems like you can trust it? Since nothing malicious could survive the DJVU to PDF conversion since it's just "dumb" bitmap-based.
If your DjVu file contains an exploit for your DjVu decoder, even if you run it in a bombproof container, it could still conceivably inject malicious code into the resulting PDF file. That sounds far-fetched because the exploit payload would need to recognize that a PDF conversion was going on and respond by generating the PDF, but I remember when people thought exploiting buffer overflows was implausible, and this is not the same level of rocket science.
As a format for preserving full native scan views (large, but often strongly preferable for visually-significant works or preserving original typesetting / typography), DJVU is highly useful.
I do wish that it were more widely supported by both toolchains and readers. That will come in time, I suspect.
Evince doesn't come by default with Archlinux (my desktop distribution of choice), but I still install it everywhere.
This doesn't make sense; nothing comes "by default" on Arch, but evince is in the official repos as far as I see.
Yes, evince is in the official repos. Just like Chromium and Firefox. Or bash, but not any other shell (as far as I can tell).
Obviously, folks can disagree on the "straightforward" part of your comment given the overwhelming number of files we're discussing