RE: the recent post here. No, I will NOT relax. It's more than whether or not people can download a movie for free.
Libraries are, or should be, about freedom and a certain amount of anarchy. Free people read. All the complaining by some of the wingers about ALA and Cuba should let you know that. Apparently some things, according to the government in Cuba, arenâ€™t to be read. How is that different than denying someone the chance to view a DVD? â€œOh, because someone needs to get paid.â€? Got it.
For all the blathering about free markets I hear from the right, I rarely see any mention of that when it comes to intellectual property. Why ARE DVDâ€™s restricted by region? Shouldnâ€™t the market decide who gets to sell and where? Ironically, like Cuba, people here who publish copy protection circumvention can also go to jail. (http://www.pfir.org/dmca-arrest) Or you can just be threatened, harassed and sued by the media conglomerates.
Iâ€™m for protection of copyrights in a sensible manner, but does it really serve any purpose for copyrights to be extended to nearly a century, except to enrich the already rich, or create trust-fund babies out of heirs of great artists? Now we have the spectre of â€œrestoredâ€? copyright, i.e. taking something that WAS the publicâ€™s and giving it to someone else. It doesnâ€™t take a giant leap to think that this opens the door to making expired copyrights available to the highest bidder.