Slashdot Mirror
A Copyright Nightmare
New submitter forkfail writes "If further proof were needed that copyright law was out of control in the U.S., it can be found in the fact that it costs 10 dollars to view Martin Luther King's famous Dream Speech. You might think you could find it on YouTube or other public venues, given its importance in American history. But no — the rights are firmly locked away until 2038."
This is just part of a larger, really nasty conflict which has been going on within the King family since Coretta King's death. While deaths should ideally bring families together, they probably more often tear them apart (as petty old grudges and sibling rivalries find new expression in the debate over disposition of the estate)--ESPECIALLY when money is involved.
In short Dexter King was sued by his sister Bernice and brother Martin Luther King III over Coretta King's estate after she died. Then he countersued. They later settled, but the copyright on those speeches was one of the most valuable financial assets they fought over in those lawsuits (which they divided up amongst the siblings). In short, the settlement requires that these speeches be treated as financial resources and treated as such.
Money and greed trumped morality as the vultures descended.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
oohhh but yes! You Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
".......... in which, after my death my family do not prey on my legacy like bloodthirsty maniacs to make money ........"
apparently, that one just remained a dream ...
Read radical news here
...a heck of a lot more of a contribution to society than his greed-fixated offspring. But this is America; we are supposed to know that the best kind of nobility doesn't always run in families.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=i+have+a+dream
The video is literally the fourth link on the page. And served from Youtube. /facepalm
sigh.
The family is almost unconcerned about his legacy and farm workers, focusing on their own wealth.
So we all know some of the King family have become money grubbing pricks equaled only by the Tolkien estate, and it doesn't surprise me that they want the speech behind paywalls, but this video of the speech has been on youtube for just short of a year.
So how is it impossible to view the speech without giving the Kings $10?
He died so his descendants could be free to lock history away from everyone.
What better way to encourage him to create new works?
This story is a duplicate, but still valuable.
And as I posted previously, I still want to know why this is different from Steam Boat Willy. Cultures need to be able to decide for themselves what is significant. In order to do that, copyright needs to have a limit. I would suggest no more than 2 generations, or 38 years. Disney and other companies have destroyed what should be a person's innate right to culture. Almost all of us alive today were raised with Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse should belong to us all. And so should MLK's Dream.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
And this is a great reason why everything should return to public domain within a few years. We, the public, provided an automatic monopoly on an idea with the expectation that it would be returned to the public in a few years. A FEW. Not 90. Not 100.
The entire point of copyright is to encourage works to be contributed to the public domain. Kinda nullifies public domain when the duration of copyright is almost half as long as America has existed. Let's turn back the clock on copyright duration. Make it 5-7 years. If that was long enough to exploit one's works in the 1600s, it would certainly be adequate today with the speed of digital distribution.
Create a parody under fair use, with the original audio track, and Martin Luther King flying though space emitting a rainbow.
I have a dream that code compiled in a 32-bit systems will one day live in an operating system where a copyright will not expire by the overflowing of its bits, but by the content of a 64-bit wrapper around any functions involving time_t.
Money and greed indeed. If it wasn't MLK's family conflict, it would be something else. The point is that copyright is flawed, which just accentuates human flaws.
Instead of serving to distribute the literature and humanity that was MLK, copyright is being used for greed. This is sad, but no big surprise.
Fix copyright and patent laws to protect the individuals that originated the work, and the vultures less. Individuals who are able to create and inspire will continue to do so, and vultures will have to search a little harder for their financial carrion.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
It isn't just his family who has turned this into a nightmare, MLK Jr. himself started the whole issue:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_speech/
Furthermore, it appears this wasn't simply a response to someone else trying to publish and profit from his address, it sounds like he claimed copyright a mere month after he gave the speech
From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-pasternack/i-have-a-dream-copyright_b_944784.html):
"Also crucial in the estate’s copyright claims: though King himself claimed copyright of the speech a whole month after he delivered it, his claim was seen as valid because no “tangible” copy of the speech had been distributed before he made his claim. (The ruling was based on previous copyright law, from 1909, not the 1975 law we use today.)"
Your ideas which I agree with about the length of copyright need money, lobby groups, and more money to actually do some good. Neither of these I have so I'll just nod and agree.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
And this is a great reason why everything should return to public domain within a few years. We, the public, provided an automatic monopoly on an idea with the expectation that it would be returned to the public in a few years. A FEW. Not 90. Not 100.
We the public (as in we Americans) agreed to a monopoly for a LIMITED time. Limited doesn't mean "a few years" nor does it mean "90" or "100." While the current length is limited, the fact that it is constantly being increased seems to imply it is no longer limited.
I think it should be copyright it or maybe trade mark it as well?
"I Have a Dream"(c)(tm)
This is just part of a larger, really nasty conflict which has been going on within the King family since Coretta King's death.
Who cares? That ought to be irrelevant. Copyright should not extend as long (or longer than) 70 years in the first place.
The problem is that by doing that, some very rich people would have to find a new dive.
You see, these very rich people are also very lazy people. They are people who sit behind a desk doing absolutly nothing, but get paid in excess of 300$/hr to pretend they are george jetson.
Specifically, I am talking about media executives, and their deadweight, spoiled and pretentious offspring.
If copyright only lasted 5 years, these people would have a much more difficult time milking the talent of other people for their own personal profit. As such, and because they are so innately lazy and hate doing things themselves, they spend some of their money to sent professional doubletalkers (eg, lobbyists) to congress with suitcases full of money.
These lazy bastards like the current status quo, drool over getting paid even more for doing even less, find the idea of a healthy public domain "terrifying", and will stop at nothing until their empires of graft and sloth are unassailable.
If you want sensible copyright to return, you have to neuter these wealthy bastard's ability to influence law.
Start there. Otherwise you are simply spinning your wheels.
Free at last, Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at las... oh... wait...
Not only is this story a dupe, but it was posted by the very same person when TFA originally came out.
The Copyright Nightmare of I Have A Dream
Simple...
-Copyrights are non-transferable
-Copyrights are void upon the death of the creator (or after 30 years if created by a group or corporation).
I think that's fair, allows for a ample opportunity to generate a profit, and, above all, protects the content creator(s).
Collector's Edition
Was it copyrighted before the speech was given? Then is should be been public domain. I'm sure it was publicly printed in it's entirety before it was copyrighted. That doesn't even discuss the fact that it is part of American History and had a huge impact on America as a whole. Not just minorities at the time.
How can an speech that occurs in public be "copyrighted"? I can see how an individual recording could be -- If I take a photograph of you I own the copyright, presumably that applies to videos as well.
In many way that's really no different than asking why the script to a play, or the words to a poem, or the composition of a song performed in public can be copyrighted. The simple fact that a work first occurs in public shouldn't make it ineligible for copyright.
Copyright trolls have lost the battle. Piracy is seen as a legitimate and moral act. I will be blacking out my sites in support of SOPA/PIPA and I will be a pirate to the death. The fight for the internet and communications in general is upon us, the pirates will win. I will be firing my canons, and making Copyrighters walk the plank.
Same answer applies.
Let market work, put government out of business by prohibiting it from meddling with business and taking sides, taking literally, role of Mafia organisation with protection racket.
Trade secrets are the way of the free market. Copyrights and patents are protectionist measures used by those with close government ties to prevent competition and it's a ploy by politicians to get money out of the economy into their own campaigns and pockets.
Abolish copyrights and patents - this same answer goes back for years.
You can't handle the truth.
We can't just lay this at the feet of King's family. King himself... in his lifetime... jealously guarded his copyrights.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You took so long noticing your rights getting whittled away that the stupidest things are now happening. Have fun getting perpetually fucked in the ass.
"After 70 years Martin Luther King Jr's famous speech on civil rights has been released into public domain."
Millions of American school kids start messaging each other "Martin who?"
Great way to make a memorable man forgettable...
When something is already part of a culture shouldnt be copyrighted anymore. Its like giving away free dosis of a drug and when you are already addicted, start to sell it.
Doesn't that date have something to do with Unix' clock rolling over?
Has anyone addressed the fact that this speech was plagiarized by MLK from Archibald Carey?
Then, in 1999, a judge in Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. determined that the speech was a performance distributed to the news media and not the public, making it a “limited” as opposed to a “general” publication.
So all those people he's speaking to in the video are members of the media? I'm not defending copyright law, but this seems to be a case where copyright law in itself is not the problem, it's the way it's being enforced.
It's not the Martin Luther King estate's fault, necessarily.
But it is. They could put his speech in the public domain. They could choose not to sue for infringements. They could sell the speech and video of it for free. This isn't a judgment of whether they should, but copyright law hasn't mandated this scenario, it's just allowed it.
Also crucial in the estate’s copyright claims: though King himself claimed copyright of the speech a whole month after he delivered it, his claim was seen as valid because no “tangible” copy of the speech had been distributed before he made his claim.
Well, everything seems to be in order. I agree copyright needs to be seriously reformed, but the reporting of this example seems to be much inflated to sound more nefarious than it is.
Life + 70 is just too long. Let's bring it back to 28 years + 1 14-year renewal (the law for most of the history of the USA), and require registration.
That would mean, for example, that "I have a dream" would have reverted to the public domain almost 7 years ago, which seems about right.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/01/bummer-martin-luther-king-jr-stole-i-have-a-dream-speech-from-black-republican/
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that thei
Entitlement mentality of the day:
My dad did something people liked, so people should pay me money to view the video of it.
1 million years is also a 'limited' time.
Read radical news here
Can't find it on youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
-Copyrights are void upon the death of the creator
That leaves an author with many people having a vested interest in their death... How about we rename the holiday "Civil Rights Day" and be done with the shakedown racket?
MLK relatives will surely not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Yeah... actually, this doesn't really add anything to the argument. Who decides what public speeches are supposed to be in the public domain? How about concerts that may or may not have social or political impact? The actual content of Dr. King's speech shouldn't have any bearing on the law. If it had been recorded by a representative of the US government, then by law it is in the public domain. Otherwise, it's the protected work of an artist. It has nothing to do with the real problems of copyright, such as the excessive length of protection.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I see a future where great artists mysteriously vanish without a trace... record and movie companies add great new content to their cataloges. They'll make a killing in the new media landscape.
I do not see exactly why political speech can or should be protected by copyright. I see only a legacy of issues with politicians sending DMCA on people using excerpts of their speech they do not want to be seen anymore (because they said something stupid or racist, or whatever). Political speech is very public by nature, and must not be protected by copyright for the sake of democracy.
I've said this before, and this is a good example. Intellectual property should be solely the property of the author. Period. It should be non-transferable and upon the authors death become public domain. Only PEOPLE could own IP and a company that hired someone to write something like a song for them would be well advised to keep those people employed. When several people work together to create a work, they would have to agree ahead of time the percentage of the IP each own. There should be a bare minimum of ownership a contributor can have based on the number of people involve. (no making the bassist take only 0.1% just because he's the bassist) All owners would have to contribute actual content, not just fund the recording. If no prior agreement was made the work is considered public domain by default. In fact, work for hire by a buisness might require that the IP be made public domain so they could ensure their use wouldn't be cut off. Viewing IP created by someone else without their permission would not be illegal. Selling or otherwise profiting off of that IP would however, be illegal.
It'll never happen, but I think it would work.
Dickhead. He gave the speech in public, it was recorded by many people and media companies. It's a major part of American history. Copyright serves no purpose in this case. He wasn't going to protect the recording (which he didn't make himself) and use it to finance future creations.
I heard an interview on NPR with MLK's lawyer about this a year or two ago. He claimed that he not only put a copyright notice on the speech immediately (in those quaint times you had to do that to get a copyright), but when MLK changed the speech on the podium a bit, he made sure the press was released a copyright version of the new modified text.
It actually made quite a bit of sense at the time. Everybody knew even at the time it was going to be a historic speech, and this prevented anybody else from profiting off of reproducing it without giving the author a cut. Considering what he was engaged in doing at the time, it would be tough to come up with a more noble use of existing copyright law.
The problem comes nearly 50 years later, when the author is long dead, has his own frigging monument on the mall in DC, and this speech inarguably belongs in the Public Domain. Yet it isn't, and may never be if trends continue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
I have the text of his speech. I've heard the recording of his speech in school (circa early 1970s). It's on youtube. it's available as mp3 and other formats via torrent and amule.
I don't understand how THOUSANDS of episodes produced for PBS are only available to his Alma Mater. Shouldn't my local PBS affiliate be able to rebroadcast those at their choosing?
g=
I'm looking at the two speeches. Both have "america the beautiful" lyrics at start, big deal. The 2nd paragraph have some similar parts and same idea but King's has better adjectives. Then there's the 3rd paragraph of Kings which Carey doesn't have......not plagiarism.
record and movie companies add great new content to their cataloges
once... and then they have to find a new cash-cow to exploit.
See, once the creator is dead, the media company gets to make 0 revenue off them, as all the work is copyright-free, all of us can download it to our hearts content without paying a dime. The media companies will have more interest in keeping a content creator alive as long as possible.
Remember that next time you go to see the Justin Bieber concert and he's wheeled out in the sterile bubble. It'll be like the old Soviet leadership.
On the other hand, they'll suddenly have incentive to prove that Elvis really is alive and working in that chip shop.
it costs 10 dollars to view Martin Luther King's famous Dream Speech.
Yeah, but it's the extended version where he wraps up the speech with an awesome performance of Blue Velvet.
the copyright will hold steady until 2023, at which time "steamboat willie" will be up for release to the public domain, and disney will do everything in its power to get all copyrights extended for another hundred years.
then this speech will be copyrighted until 2138, or whenever mickey mouse needs protecting again.
I sure hope so, because that is when this one girl will go out with me. Quote: Yeah, like in a million years or so.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Let it be hidden from the public eye: who cares about it anyway? Certainly not the rest of the world, and most certainly not a lot of Americans will pay $10 to see it. Then, who knows, maybe history will repeat itself.
I think i remember that but it seemed that the idea was also to prevent people from charging for the video of the speech or charging admission to see recordings of it. Am I right it's been a while sense I heard that.
That is one of the few video clips (mid quality MPEG-1, iirc...), in the encyclopedia and since it is so closely held I've always kept that old copy (legal!) around to show people who've never seen it before... Sad, funny and true....
25y of copyright and if the entity having the right dies or disappears before the end of the copyright , the copyright and it's royalties, fixed at their level before the right-holder disappearance time, belong to the government for 20y after that event. That way unless the gov is seriously corrupted beyond repair, the authors are compensated, no one has an incentive to murder them and we gradually get rid of those bratty estates.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Which doesn't seem to be charging me $10
... should have been held on Monday. And YouTube should have dropped all their MLK speech videos. That would have gotten a few people thinking.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not at all. The derivative works would still have copyright protection. The movie company assassinates the author, then takes the script, revises it a little, and makes it into a movie, which is protected by copyright for 30 years. The movie industry couldn't have it much better than that.
Similarly, the music company does the recording as a work for hire. The artist agrees to a small flat fee for the recording, knowing that he or she will get songwriter royalties. The artist dies in a mysterious boating accident. The royalties are never paid because they are no longer owed, but the music company owns all rights to the recording (because it is a derivative work).
The author's death should not play into it at all. Copyright should be for a certain number of years, period. That said, if you're going to make the author's death a factor, copyright should last until the author's death or n years, whichever is longer, where n is the same as the length of a corporate copyright.
Either way, individual copyrights should certainly not have a shorter period than corporate copyrights as is the case now. Corporations can afford to burn money to create new works. Individuals have to either squeeze it into the gaps in their work schedule or starve in order to create new works. Individuals suffer far greater hardship in order to achieve their creation, so the protection of individually copyrighted works should be commensurately greater.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If it can't be found on youtube, what's this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
I know copyright is widely considered broken, but the speech is available to listen to here: http://www.archive.org/details/MLKDream
Sorry, it's a nice question but it risks red-herring us away from real reform.
Basically "Works are Copyrighted the moment they come into existence" - as such that's clear enough. So the audience is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Your thunder-case is a Live Concert. The really good musicians will throw extra trills and riffs all over the "classic studio" mix arrangement, thus making Live concerts that special thing worth the extra bucks and tshirts etc. The band (and X middlemen) absolutely own the rights to that Live version.
So yes, human nature says that 100 people of the 30,000 people concert will make bootlegs, but those are the top of the infringement case list.
"Speeches for goodwill" like MLK's don't suddenly become "Public Domain" just because they're about civil rights and not music.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Another 20+ years of copyright on it...spend it diluting it.
Most people are familiar with the "I have a dream" aspect of it.
So, release your own......use those words.
Do it enough times and the culture thrives on the internet for it's information will find that the original speech is barely remember and the rest of the "I have a dream" speeches will be proliferated.
That's enough time to hit the 12 and under crowd that exists now and a whole new generation, or two. And that's assuming the copyright doesn't get extended again.
Once it's made worthless, they'll either try to get everything else removed.........or finally give up the idea that they have to ring every last dime out of the speech while it becomes worth less and less as they hide it away.
To the Germans who can't get the YouTube link: try this one instead:
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/History/Speeches/I-Have-a-Dream/7283
-- Terry
I think Copyright should have a none commercial use waver on all national culture of great historical significance ie MLK "I have a dream" speech would be a great example. When people can toll booth a nations cultural history especially with things of great significance it shows how truly broken copyright is.
The date will roll over in 2038, and the copyright will never expire.
Every time I see that word, that damned song pops into my head. Why is it such an earworm?
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
It seems relevant to mention The King James Version of the bible, completed in 1611, whose copyright, still in force after 400 years, is held by the British Crown.
The speech has little value in terms of modern political zeitgeist. It has only historic value, which makes it highly irrelevant.
It makes sense only in the context of overwhelming propaganda of idolization of only one of political leaders of that era. One fourth of blacks in US (Muslims) consider Malcolm X to be much more influential figure than King.
With elimination of idolization there would be no remaining relevance of copyright on these artefacts.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If you want the exact words, obviously it would be best to dig up the interview on npr.org somehow. The sense I got from it was that it was more a concern (at least on the lawyer's part) that some folks were liable to make a lot of money off that speech, and he didn't want his client getting ripped off. I'm thinking newspapers, audio recordings, etc.
The bit about him releasing the changed verion turned out to be rather important though. I heard from other interviews that the whole "I Have a Dream" coda wasn't even going to be in the original speech. Supposedly he was just getting geared up when one of his supporters up by the podium (Mahalia Jackson?) who had heard him working up the "I Have a Dream" part at other speaking engagements asked him to do it there. If you listen carefully to live audio recordings, you can hear her say "Tell them about the Dream, Martin" right before he launches into it.
So if the lawyer hadn't released the updated transcript, the whole "I have a dream" portion wouldn't have been covered.
... perhaps a FOIA request to the FBI would turn it up...
I think that Dr. King's speech is, in its essential nature, an instance of a "speech to the public".
Its content was loudly and emphatically proclaimed directly to the ears of a large live audience and also I assume was broadcast far and wide by radio and television at the time, and the speechwriter and deliverer Dr. King, if asked at the time, would certainly have said "Yes. Yes. Spread it far and wide. It is a message that I need to get to as many ears as possible far and wide, as soon as possible, and the message should be ringing in those ears forever."
That was CLEARLY the original intent.
I think it is safe to say therefore that the content of that speech resides in the public domain. If it does not, then nothing does.
Surely, if the "form" of some particular video recording of it is copyrighted, it is only the form of that recording as distinct from other forms, and it is not the content itself, which is in its essential nature a public domain utterance to a nation.
So at the very least someone should be able to re-enact it (from notes and memories, it could be claimed) and record that and make that available.
but if there is a secondary recording not owned by some greedy private interest, that would be better and is not subject to the same copyright as the recording that seems to be at the heart of the legal case. That would be better.
Or perhaps it was broadcast into another country and recorded there. The possibilities for freedom are endless. Or one can always dream.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That leaves an author with many people having a vested interest in their death...
Yeah, so? Many people have a vested interest in someone else's death. Most business partners and such (depending on the partnership) have a vested interest in the death of the other. Anyone with life insurance as well. And murder for life insurance money is actually so rare as to be inconsequential, usually the spouse just plain hated them, and the money was a pleasant bonus.
Learn to love Alaska
The author's death should not play into it at all.
It does now, and nobody has ever been assassinated for copyright, so I can't see how it would change if the term changes.
Learn to love Alaska
I can find a lot of copywritten content on youtube without a lot of effort. That doesn't mean it should be there for you to consume without paying the price.
At least, that's what the heirs to MLKs legacy would have you believe. This whole thing is ridiculous.
"You might think you could find it on YouTube or other public venues, given its importance in American history. But no — the rights are firmly locked away until 2038."
Posted in 2009, and still available as I type this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x833ml_martin-luther-king-i-have-a-dream-s_news
Unfortunately, you will have to endure inserted breaks for advertising on that one.
Or, this one, posted on Youtube a year ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
Just imagine how well musicians will be treated by their owners if they lose copyright when they die? No more managers giving drugs to artists but instead guarding them from such abuses... That would be the day... when the pathetic artists are protected by their benefactors! At least they'd get something for the exploitation.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Someone could buy the speech from the estate and refuse to sell it to anyone. You can send a piece of history to the Memory Hole if you have enough money.
It's not practical to kill someone just so that their works will be available for your company to exploit in 70 years. By contrast, people are killed for their inheritance every day, knowing that it will be distributed a few days later. Change copyright to end at death + zero days as was suggested previously, and you'll quickly find out how it would change.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
MLK wrote the speech
I wouldn't mind paying MLK. Why should I have to pay his family when they provide NOTHING to me? His family is the ones that seem entitled. They are creating nothing.
By contrast, people are killed for their inheritance every day, knowing that it will be distributed a few days later.
Despite what CSI and The Mentalist would have you believe, people are not killed for their inheritance every day. A quick search showed 6.4% of murders were for "gain" (1994 in India, all I could find easily), so the other 94% were for something other than inheritance. It happens in the movies and on TV, but for those who live in the real world, we don't kill our parents for inheritance. Did you smother your mother with a pillow, and now you think everyone would have done the same because she didn't make you mac 'n cheese or buy you that new gaming rig you wanted?
Change copyright to end at death + zero days as was suggested previously, and you'll quickly find out how it would change.
It wouldn't. There wouldn't be wholesale slaughter of artists to get their copyright into the Public Domain. If you think every human will kill for $10, then think of it this way, if Disney killed an artist to get art in the public domain, how can they make money off it if everyone else can as well?
Learn to love Alaska
If any of these punk corporations, google, wikipedia, etc, were true to the cause, they would have ALREADY GONE BLACK, and KEPT IT THAT WAY until a dialog was forced.
What they are doing tomorrow is complete horseshit.
Fuckin put a .13 byte DENY FROM ALL on your entire site you chicken shit motherfuckers. It ain't just SOPA it's the whole fucking load of unconstitutional psychopathic bullshit.
If you have integrity You will go dark, until the Constitution is restored.
No excuses. You stay lit, You keep your sites up? You Consent to this fucking bullshit. Your a fucking SLAVE.
parliamentary privilege/immunity legally protects legislature members for what they do in the course of their official duties. That would probably be a shield even if copyright on the speeches was an issue.
The US version (Constitution Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1)
[Members of Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I can think of a better way: Make the duration of copyright five years, so creative people don't make one work and then sit on their asses for for a hundred. You want to encourage people to make new works? A century of copyright certainly won't encourage them.
Works performed creating lightwaves are absolutely subject to copyright.
Athletic events are subject to copyright, as are theater performances.
You can't, for example, film a performance of Book of Mormon and then (legally) broadcast it on the internet.
paintball
If it was a sermon, isn't it Copyright God? (channelled by His faithful minister), and since God loves everyone he must want everyone to have the speech. That's the whole point of preaching.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
All people who own something and try to make money off of it = BAD. All people who try to take those things for free = GOOD.
I get so tired of reading the Slashdotters' theory of economics.
The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
This is what happens when someone is a major public figure, and their kids are nobodies. The heirs have been trying to monetize King's legacy. The heirs have a corporation ("King, Inc.") to manage the assets, and have used Intellectual Property Management, Inc. to handle licensing deals. The head of the Elvis Presley operation, who'd been consulted by King's heirs on marketing strategy, said "There's a distinct difference in the role Martin Luther King played in society and Elvis the entertainer. But the basic mechanisms of protecting, guarding and nurturing the value of the name, image and likeness are the same.":
The heirs have been fighting over the assets for years. There's a long litigation record. The whole thing is embarrassing.
Do you have a public performance license for that video? if not, showing others could still be illegal (even though encarta likely paid for the rights to show you the video in the first place). It's not good enough to legally acquire a copy of a copyrighted work, you often need to ALSO legally acquire a separate license to be able to show it to anyone.
Copyright is so screwed up that it just isn't funny any more.
If his speach is to be considered an important part of American history, it should be in the public domain. I'll listen to it when it is.
A quick bit of math: there are 45 murders per day in the U.S. Therefore, if 6.4% are over inheritance, then there are on average almost three murders over inheritance per day in the U.S. alone. So if your numbers are correct, then they almost certainly do happen every day.
I'm not saying there would be wholesale slaughter of artists. I'm saying that it would add an incentive for killing content creators, which even if nobody acted on it, would still not be a good idea. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It is not available in all country due to copyright :
Dieses Video ist in Deutschland leider nicht verfügbar, da es mÃglicherweise Musik enthÃlt, für die die erforderlichen Musikrechte von der GEMA nicht eingerÃumt wurden.
More or less read that as "music right from the german RIAA" stop that being shown in germany.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As said in other post, MLK himself claimed copyright, and he could do it, because under the 1909 law as long as no physical media (paper) is distributed the speech was not per see public. Strange but that is the fact.
LOL stupidity
The real effect of this law.
I heard his name, I dont know what he did, I never heard him speak, and for sure not seen him speak.
So.. really who is he? and why is he important?
(Seriously now: I do know kinda what he did, but more in detail, I have no clue.. probably thanks to this law)
Copyrights and patents must be abolished.
Copyrights and patents prevent speech, prevent innovation, prevent progress.
The only real free market approach to protecting your ideas is a trade secret, that's all. Government must not be allowed to meddle with businesses and protect business models and practices.
When somebody uses his savings to start a woodshop, as an example, if they fail and business dies out and they are out of their investment, there won't be government standing there with a handout, and it shouldn't be - it's personal risk.
Same with copyrights and patents - these are government handouts at the expense of the larger free market economy and it makes no sense to protect one type of investment over any other type. Government shouldn't be subsidising any businesses at all ever (banks, insurance companies and Solyndra come to mind).
Abolish copyrights and patents and check out the link I posted in this comment, it leads to my other comment on the same topic, but it's not my comment that is of interest, it's the response to my comment, with /. readers being vehemently opposed to the idea.
Why are /. readers opposed to this? Because they think that their business model is more important than a woodshop founder's business model. So the woodshop or a restaurant founder can go eat shit if his business fails (and a woodshop and especially a restaurant is a very location based heavy business, if you are in the wrong location, your business will fail, while on the Internet, businesses have access to near global markets, so there is a huge advantage for the software/book/movie/audio, etc. types of businesses there).
It's hypocrisy, it's short-sightedness, it's hubris and it shows the true colours (as in character) of the crowd.
You can't handle the truth.
No, abolish all copyrights and patents.
You can't handle the truth.
What could be a more fitting icon of the fact?
At least the meme lives on since it's parody and that's allowed.
Prosp long and liver.
I've no problem with the family getting some money from it, I just think the copyright should have expired ages ago. I believe copyright and patent laws should be treated the same and perhaps patents slightly longer so they both expire in about 25 years. Trade marks however could be kept indefinitely or for some years after last use and would be automatically assumed for authors characters so that for instance only Disney could make new Mickey Mouse stories but ones which were older than say twenty five years could be viewed without payment.
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
It actually made quite a bit of sense at the time.
I disagree.
Everybody knew even at the time it was going to be a historic speech
No they didn't.
and this prevented anybody else from profiting off of reproducing it without giving the author a cut. Considering what he was engaged in doing at the time, it would be tough to come up with a more noble use of existing copyright law.
No it wouldn't. In fact, this is painting a rather nasty picture of MLK as a guy who gave less of a shit about civil rights than he did about his personal fortune. He's not someone to hold up as noble.
Frankly, if I'm in a crowd with a video camera, there is no way somebody making a speech should own my fucking recording any more than the old mad guy with a "the end is near" sign whose ramblings I filmed the other day should own that recording. You say it in public, you're benefitting from its publicity - it's public, not yours. That seems like a fair deal to me.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It seems this fight was between one money grabbing organisation and the family. A judicial decision may have ended up with CBS owning the copyright to the recording, with them claiming the royalties instead of the King family.
All in all though, it is a prime example of why copyright should be a reasonably short length of time such as 20 years or so to ensure that memorable events like this enter the public domain.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Hitler recites "I have a dream".
FRA: STFU GTFO
I've always used MLK's "I have a dream" speech as a test video when I set up PCs in my kids' schools.
I've never had to pay for it once, and I've played it for the children dozens of times.
OK... I just visited the American Rhetoric site... it's got "video purchase" where it used to have a clean link. Sad.
Found it on Youtube free of charge in ten seconds, though. Keep uploading it, people, that's what Dr. King would want you to do!
He'd want you to smash the voting machines, too, though - and most of you are too terrorized for real civil disobedience these days, so that's unlikely to happen.
Yeah, and if the SOPA/PIPA acts are passed by Congress, youtube and everyone else will presumably have to remove such infringements or face some serious fines (and jail time for the criminals who expose us to such speech).
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
No they didn't.
Well, that was the lawyer's story. Perhaps he wasn't telling the truth, but the fact is that he was there, and you AFAIK weren't. So frankly, I'm going with his assertion over yours.
No it wouldn't. In fact, this is painting a rather nasty picture of MLK as a guy who gave less of a shit about civil rights than he did about his personal fortune. He's not someone to hold up as noble.
I don't suppose you read the part where I said his lawyer did this? MLK himself probably never would have thought to do it, which is why the lawyer took it upon himself to do it immediately. And frankly as a lawyer, looking out for his client's interests like this is his job.
Frankly, if I'm in a crowd with a video camera, there is no way somebody making a speech should own my fucking recording any more than the old mad guy with a "the end is near" sign whose ramblings I filmed the other day should own that recording. You say it in public, you're benefitting from its publicity - it's public, not yours. That seems like a fair deal to me
For the most part, I agree with this ... today. Dang near everybody has a video camera on their person. "Publishing" something is now practically free.
But you have to put yourself back in 1963 for a minute. Back then cameras were heavy expensive peices of equipment that required lots of wired-up power. Nobody would bother to drag out and set up and use one unless there was a buck in it somehow. Audio recording equipment was only a little less so. Printing was also expensive, and best left to those who could afford to buy their ink by the barrel. There were no photcopiers, laser-printers, etc.
The second thing to realise is that copyright law back then was a lot closer to what the founders intended. It only lasted a couple of decades at most, and you had to go out of your way to register for it.
The third thing you should have in your head is the financial relationship between the races in 1963. Whenever there was actual money to be made from black culture, this country had a long illustrious history of having the white establishment swoop in and suction out all the money for themselves. This is why the lawyer put the copyright on so quickly. A lawyer in this situation bascially had two options: join in the looting (sadly the typical response), or do the right thing and protect his client's interests.
So what the lawyer thought he was doing was keeping his client's work from only enriching a bunch of rich white media types for a few years. He wasn't trying to lock the text of the speech away from the public forever. The US Congress has subsequently made that happen.
The word "misappropriated" in your sentence bears an immense weight. You owe it to us to define it and explain how it applies here.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Now I understand why celebrities give photographers the finger -- by doing this they are performing a creative act and the press is not allowed to freely publish that. I knew there was a reason!
I come here for the love
Hence the Supreme Courts decision that the constitutions use of the word "limited" for copyright means infinity - 1! Just like all uses of "shall not" and "no" in the constitutional limits on government (Right to bear arms, Free speech, search and seizure) mean "you can do it if you deem it necessary". Very logical. /s
Paying the family is paying MLK. A father should be able to create things for his family. Those things shouldn't be looted the instant he dies. That's one incentive to create: so you can provide for your family after you're gone.
The time should be limited, and I don't necessarily support the ruling that this speech isn't public.
But why should anyone listen to a bunch of self-entitled whiners who offer nothing to anyone? The speech contains a phrase "the content of his character". A lot of people on Slashdot should ponder what that phrase means.
remove mlk day as a federal and state holiday until all mlk-related speeches, photographs, video and text held by his descendants and/or estate is donated to the public domain. why should the nation honor someone who we cannot lawfully study for free? 5 legal holidays crammed between late-nov and mid-feb is stupid as hell anyway.
You're describing the Eldred bill, also called the Public Domain Enhancement Act. But the movie studios would never support it. Any legislator who co-sponsors anything like the PDEA will get all his dirty laundry dug up and aired on the TV news networks owned by the parent companies of the movie studios.
NO ONE NEEDS more than twenty eight (28) years on Copyrights, PERIOD !
To think that big money pushed through two (three?) expansions on this just shows how and who
controls on this planet, and it sure isn't the people's representatives, the Governments, it's the Corporations and their owners.
"I had a green"
I am activating the DMCA on any entity that claims copyright on Mr. King's speech. Mr. King made his speech in public, for all to hear, and so it is public domain.
Its took all of sixty seconds to do a quick fact check - here's the speech on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
Remember the old adage - don't believe everything you read.
A quick Google search will give you the full text for free. Where is the basic fact checking when we need it? Why do people get so worked up over false statements? By the way, a major asteroid is going to hit Earth tomorrow. Panic, everyone!
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
I am a big fan of MLK Jr. He was a man, with all the usual human frailties attached, but he was special. No small part of that "specialness" was his "I Have A Dream" speech. Strip all his now copyrighted & now protected evermore speeches and sermons from pulpits and there would be nothing left to remember him except his holiday. "WTH was it that MLK Jr. was so honored with a national holiday?" will be a question often asked in another generation or two, not a situation that MLK Jr himself would be in favor of.
It is possible, even likely, to kill that which you love or respect most by holding it so closely that it cannot be shared. Obviously, the lunatics are now running the asylum, and they are evil greedy f**kers.
What's next? Not allowing direct quotations be made, audible or in writing, of the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah? Which corporate entity gets the licensing fees from Those Violations?