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."
Dear IP Overloads. I'm worried. I want to get copies of the Gettysburg Address and , but if I read these words without paying the appropriate sums to the Lincoln and Shakespeare families, will I be sued, and what will be the fines for infringement? My understanding is that it is now the number of atoms in the universe squared dollars, but perhaps that has changed.
Yours sincerely, your frightened subservient intellectual serf.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Well obviously decency and a willingness to risk your own life to make the world a better place can skip a few generations.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Broken window fallacy.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people. To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
The long and complex of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't know about in the U.S., but here in South Africa, political speeches are specifically exempted from copyright, and are automatically placed in the public domain. I can only assume that there are similar measure in most countries, otherwise, how could politicians quote each other without suing each other into oblivion ;) Oooooh that's a good idea... if we can fool the *IAA into lobying for all political speeches to be copyrighted, then the politicians will sue each other out of office, clearing the way for someone sensible... hey, we can dream.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
So that dream came true, just not the way he expected.
As far as I know, there's no "logic", they're simply defined by law.
Dilbert RSS feed
Wow...brilliantly spotted.
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?