I hope that the two Russians arrested over Z-library won't get much more than a slap on the wrist. There are much worse offenses than pirating books.
Something is legal if the society has decided it to be. That is distinct from merely being popular. I am arguing that the consensus opinion is very strongly in support of making publicly funded research also accessible to said public.
As a result, the question of whether such an action is "good" or "right" isn't really sufficient. Because the point isn't popularity, the point is that citizens can change their laws.
Isn't that the difference between legitimate and legal? Maybe `legitimate == legal` would be the ideal world (not thought hard enough about it).
If I copy your property, you still have access to, and use of, your property.
I would argue that is not immoral.
As a (recreational part-time), content creator myself, I would of course prefer it if people paid me so I didn’t have to work every day. But I’d rather that be on the basis of somebody wanting me to thrive, and showing their support, rather than me threatening them with legal action because they can’t prioritise giving me money over other demands in their life.
If you want a physical copy of some work, you need to pay for it. That’s moral. Digital copies? I think we’ve bought the myths of publishers and the content industry and it’s harming our education as a species.
However, I consider the privatisation of publically funded research to be (currently) legal theft.
Edit: I realise this was an indirect response to your comment, so I would also like to add that a meta-point I want to make is that we came to almost polar opposite conclusions despite having the same "morality" to a certain accuracy. Therefore, it could be argued that morality is not a sufficient measure for lawmaking.
FWIW my work, which puts food on my table, is pirated every day.
In the grand scheme of things social programs have done way more harm to the advancement of knowledge than high textbook prices.