I think you&#x27;re looking at it differently than Falkvinge (granted, he may be willfully contorting his perspective to whatever fits his argument.)  Wikipedia says about the Libraries Act[1], &quot;The Capitalist economic model had created shift patterns which left workers with free time[...] Campaigners felt that encouraging the lower classes to spend their free time on morally uplifting activities, such as reading, would promote greater social good.&quot;  A committee reported, &quot;the first step taken by a foreign writer was to consult a public library on the subject of his studies or composition; we find that no such auxiliary was at the service of the British intellect.&quot;  So, the supposed <i>reason</i> (for the British, at least), was for the public good and intellect.  The first sale doctrine is a <i>legal defense</i>, which is not the same as a reason public libraries should exist or why they are good.<p>This may be somewhat muddied by his use of &quot;defend&quot; everywhere, rather than something else.  Anyway, I think he has a decent point, that libraries were last century&#x27;s big threat to IP holders (would have liked to see some citations on the controversy though), the government decided a public good would be served with a smallish sacrifice from the industry, and that filesharing is a similar but much more efficient execution of that public service (but at perhaps too big of a cost to the IP holders.)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Public_Libraries_Act_1850" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Public_Libraries_Act_1850</a>