Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship United States Your Rights Online

A Copyright Nightmare 411

Posted by Soulskill
from the what's-75-years-between-friends dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Copyright Nightmare

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:15PM (#38729716)

    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.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:19PM (#38729772) Journal

      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.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:20PM (#38729782)

      Here is a pretty good article [ajc.com] on the lawsuits.

    • by Shakrai (717556) * on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:21PM (#38729794) Journal

      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. How can it be though that there isn't one recording of his speech that's been released in the public domain? Surely not everybody who was there with a camera was interested in money and greed?

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:30PM (#38729988)

        How can it be though that there isn't one recording of his speech that's been released in the public domain?

        I was thinking that exact same thought as I read it to start with, but then I got to thinking about when the speech was made. It's not like there were cellphones that recorded video, it's not like there were handycams that fit into your hand - or on your shoulder for that matter. The number of people recording that speech was probably indeed just one or two. If that is the case, then it is quite likely that while the speech itself is not copyright, the only available footage of the speech is locked down in copyright as tight as tight can be.

        • by LihTox (754597)

          Does music lose its copyright just because it's performed in public? How would a speech be different?

          • by presidenteloco (659168) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @07:26PM (#38732480)

            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.

            • Not quite correct (Score:4, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @02:45AM (#38735414)
              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.
      • by LordNimon (85072)

        How can it be though that there isn't one recording of his speech that's been released in the public domain?

        I don't think there were many video cameras on the streets back in 1963. Consumer camcorders were not available until the 80s.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          Film cameras existed. There were smaller formats for "home use". Technology can take many forms and not necessarily just the ones you're directly familiar with.

          • Film cameras existed, but audio capture would have been separate at that time. Filming a speech just gives you a silent talking head with the common technology of the time.
        • by foobsr (693224)

          Back in 1963 not even Super 8 mm film was released yet.

          And, regarding regular 8mm film: "Common length film spools allowed filming of about 3 minutes to 4.5 minutes at 12, 15, 16 and 18 frames per second." (wpedia) Not to speak of lighting requirements (the material was not very sensitive).

          CC.

      • 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 comes into being when the work is "fixed into tangible form", e.g. written down or recorded.

        • by EzInKy (115248)

          That doesn't explain why the photographer gets the copyright to photos of people going about their work in public. It makes no sense that Mr. King's performance is protected while John Q. Public's is not.

          • I doubt the estate has any claim to a photo of Mr. King. A video recording, however, contains the entire copywritten text of his speech.
        • by sirlark (1676276) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:09PM (#38730604)
          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.
    • Nein. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DigitAl56K (805623) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:34PM (#38730076)

      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.

      • Re:Nein. (Score:5, Informative)

        by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @06:14PM (#38731534)

        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.

        Hmm, "I have a dream" speech, 1963. 70 years after that would be 2033. So it would still be under Copyright.

        If we drop back to the version of Copyright that was in use at the time (28+28), it would be under copyright protection until 2019. So it would still be under copyright.

        We'd have to drop back to the Copyright Act of 1831 to find a version (28+14) that would have removed it from copyright before today (in 2005)....

        • by green1 (322787)

          We could always drop back even further and find a time where the idiocy that is copyright did not exist at all, and yet arguably many of the greatest artistic works ever created still came to pass...

    • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:39PM (#38730136) Homepage

      Well obviously decency and a willingness to risk your own life to make the world a better place can skip a few generations.

    • Not just his family (Score:5, Informative)

      by DesScorp (410532) <.DesScorp. .at. .Gmail.com.> on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:44PM (#38730216) Homepage Journal

      We can't just lay this at the feet of King's family. King himself... in his lifetime... jealously guarded his copyrights. [archives.gov]

    • by Twanfox (185252)

      This only furthers the notion I have regarding the wisdom of allowing copyright of a work to persist beyond the death of the original author. While I understand the logistical nightmare it would cause if it ended there (omg, you're trying to kill authors!), the return of works to the public domain could be a conditional state. Copyright is retained for X years or author's natural death, whichever is longer, even though I feel even that might be too long. In the case of unnatural death, it would be retained

      • by slew (2918)

        Why, for example, are people allowed to leave estates to their children (or others or even charities) at all? If you didn't give the money away while you were alive, why allow any last will in testiments? Why any tax exemptions for inherited monies? Is it a flaw in our system of laws that we allow into our legal system a mechanism that gives deference to the wishes of a dying person to directly provide for thier progeny? That's a good question in my opinion.

        Of course one of the realities is that people

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:56PM (#38730412)
      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 their fr
    • by similar_name (1164087) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:58PM (#38730458)
      I Have A Dream [youtube.com]
  • ooooooh yes you can (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:20PM (#38729786)

    You might think you could find it on YouTube or other public venues, given its importance in American history. But no...

    oohhh but yes! You Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs [youtube.com]

  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:21PM (#38729798) Homepage Journal

    ".......... 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 ...

  • by sideslash (1865434) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:21PM (#38729800)
    ...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.
    • Re:Mod parent... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Surt (22457) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:28PM (#38729962) Homepage Journal

      But, but ... this is capitalism at its very best!

  • by TheMiddleRoad (1153113) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:21PM (#38729816)

    The family is almost unconcerned about his legacy and farm workers, focusing on their own wealth.

  • I don't get it.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by RobinEggs (1453925) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:22PM (#38729836)
    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 [youtube.com] has been on youtube for just short of a year.

    So how is it impossible to view the speech without giving the Kings $10?
  • Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glith (7368) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:23PM (#38729846)

    What better way to encourage him to create new works?

  • Dup (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stargoat (658863) * <stargoat@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:23PM (#38729852) Journal

    This story is a duplicate, but still valuable. [slashdot.org]

    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.

    • Re:Dup (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alexo (9335) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:24PM (#38730826) Journal

      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.

      No, because if you don't have access to your culture during the span of your generation, it is not your culture anymore. Copyright should be abolished altogether (although I would grudgingly agree to half a generation or less).

      Unfortunately, I do not have any input on the decision so you may ignore me, just as "my" government does.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      Copyright has nothing to do with the fact that Mickey is trademarked--and trademarks don't expire, unless abandoned. Of course, that makes it doubly-stupid that Disney works so hard to keep Steamboat Willie under copyright. The loss of Steamboat Willie would have no effect on their ownership of The Mouse, and next-to-no effect on their bottom line. (Sales and license fees for that particular movie are probably near-nil.)

      Probably all of us were raised with the McDonald's Arches. Does that mean we get to

    • Re:Dup (Score:5, Informative)

      by dissy (172727) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @06:02PM (#38731360)

      Not only is it a dupe, but it's just as incorrect then as it is now.

      Jan 20th, 2011 - MLK's speech, uploaded to youtube
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs [youtube.com]

      Aug 29th 2011 - First slashdot article claiming the above doesn't exist,
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/29/1728259/The-Copyright-Nightmare-of-I-Have-a-Dream [slashdot.org]

      Jan 17 2012 - Second slashdot article claiming the above doesn't exist.
      http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/17/1955257/a-copyright-nightmare [slashdot.org]

      Knowing slashdot, there will be one more dupe in a few months, about 7 days before the youtube video really is taken down, and afterward there will be no further mention of it here :/

      P.S. Soulkill posted both of the stories as well

  • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:24PM (#38729876)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wierd_w (1375923)

      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 thei

  • 2038? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:25PM (#38729916)
    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.
  • by nsanders (208050) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:28PM (#38729958) Homepage

    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/ [archives.gov]

    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.)"

    • by T.E.D. (34228) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:14PM (#38730664)

      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.

  • by Sez Zero (586611) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:38PM (#38730110) Journal

    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 [slashdot.org]

  • 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).
  • 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.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      everything you create is implicitly copyrighted to you. You don't have to do anything special (except to prove it was yours in cases of dispute).

      I think that it should be public domain as it was broadcast (ie given away) and that he didn't demand payment fees from the broadcasters of the time means he shouldn't be allowed to claim fees from broadcasters of today either. But that's just my stupid socialist opinion that would destroy the free-market capitalism of the great America state (so says the RIAA).

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:43PM (#38730202) Homepage Journal

    Same [slashdot.org] answer [slashdot.org] applies [slashdot.org].

    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. [slashdot.org]

  • "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.
  • by Bengie (1121981) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:49PM (#38730302)

    Doesn't that date have something to do with Unix' clock rolling over?

    • by SirGarlon (845873)
      Yes, in fact the copyright lobby is working on new legislation to have the copyright duration clock upgraded to 64-bit.
  • by KnownIssues (1612961) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:51PM (#38730330)

    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.

  • by mbone (558574) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:51PM (#38730334)

    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.

    • Political speech (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Meeni (1815694)

      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.

      • by Meeni (1815694)

        And I would advocate that for mere historical value, this speech should be public domain. It is so influential of the time period that it has lost any right to privacy. Any value of quotation is in the historical value, it is indeed fair use.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:06PM (#38730574)
    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.
    • by whois (27479)

      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.

      There is always a grift, and corporations are good at finding it, which is why the laws are so fucked up now. People would argue (rightly so) that someone who dies early can cost their corporation major losses due to distribution/advertising/etc of a product that's now public domain.

      Older artists like Prince, Madonna, Cher, or megagroups like U2, Metallica, etc, or junkies who otherwise make good music, would start to become unmarketable for people to license because the very real threat of death causes

  • 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.
  • 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.

  • by ckthorp (1255134) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @06:12PM (#38731508)
    I know copyright is widely considered broken, but the speech is available to listen to here: http://www.archive.org/details/MLKDream [archive.org]

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...