Being popular doesn't necessarily make something good, right, or legal.

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.

Thats a misrepresentation.

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.

I am not following your point unfortunately. Could you elaborate further?

Theft is immoral because if I steal your physical property, I have denied you access to, and use of, that property.

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.

Or theft is immoral because of unjust enrichment.

I agree, theft is, devoid of any context, immoral.

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.

Piracy is very different from theft and far more morally defensible.

FWIW my work, which puts food on my table, is pirated every day.

Impeding the growth of humanity's knowledge and capability is immoral.

How far do you extend this idea? A dollar diverted to a poor person is a dollar that can’t be used to grow humanity’s knowledge and capabilities. Is it immoral to be poor? A dollar spent on beer? Time spent having sex instead of researching the mysteries of the universe? How about low intelligence people reproducing with other low intelligence people to make low intelligence babies (“Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”) that will have to be fed and clothed and sheltered? Should people be allowed to be homeless? Be drug addicts?

In the grand scheme of things social programs have done way more harm to the advancement of knowledge than high textbook prices.

Except when it is moral, as is in Z-Library's case

So is misrepresenting something as theft.