Let's just come out and say it plainly: Z-Library is a definitive net-benefit to the humanity as a whole. Simple as that.

I don't disagree with this sentiment.

Taking money in exchange for priority access to the "stolen" materials makes things feel less like charity, though.

It is pretty much free. 10 daily downloads is enough for books and the papers are unlimited.

Do you even read 10 books per day anyway?

“I pretty much didn’t break the law, your honour”

Library Genesis (and there are multiple LibGen servers now!) has operated for years without the same profit model as Z-Library. In fact, in the e-book privacy scene that goes back well over a decade already, Z-Library’s model is pretty unusual and has always been under a cloud of controversy.

This. LibGen is respectable, Z-Library is not.

> They do need to fund it somehow, don’t they?

Why doesn’t this statement also apply to the source of the materials this entity is stealing from?