A Copyright Nightmare 411
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."
Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Funny)
I'm worried. I want to get copies of the Gettysburg Address and ,
Dear MightyMartian, due to your unapproved use of Mr. Shakespeare's title without financial remuneration, we have helpfully removed the title per Mr. Shakespeare's estate's request for you. As the Lincoln estate is not paying us an appropriate pound of flesh, we will allow the phrase "Gettysburg Address" to remain in your post without alteration.
Sincerely,
IP Overlords
Re: (Score:2)
Did Mr. Shakespeare have an estate? If so, who was the beneficiary? His son, Hamnet, predeceased him. Perhaps his wife's family?
Re: (Score:2)
I know his wife got the second-best bed. That's the one they slept in. The best bed was for guests and patrons.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a pretty good article [ajc.com] on the lawsuits.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Does music lose its copyright just because it's performed in public? How would a speech be different?
lose copyright because performed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 is it different from a play? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright comes into being when the work is "fixed into tangible form", e.g. written down or recorded.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a persons soundwaves are copyrighted while their lightwaves are not? Is that how it works? Seems odd to me if that is in fact how it is considering a person has no expectation of privacy in a public setting.
Re:How is it different from a play? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, there's no "logic", they're simply defined by law.
Re:How is it different from a play? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you saying the photographers subject retains the copyright then? If so, please provide a citation. Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
Re:How is it different from a play? (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
That is correct. The photography release forms that people are familiar with are related to invasion of privacy and defamation, not copyright.
Replying to your original post, the difference is that you are not a creative work; your physical body is a product of nature/genetics/parents/god/whatever, but it is not a creative work of man*. A speech is. It is every bit as creative and unique as prose in a book, and should be just as eligible for copyright.
That said, I do think there should be significant fair use rights for works like this, but I think it is the nature of the subject, not the fact that it was performed in the public that differentiates it.
* You're body could be a canvas for a creative work, but that is another issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How is it different from a play? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Holy CC (Score:3)
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.
Nein. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)....
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
We can't just lay this at the feet of King's family. King himself... in his lifetime... jealously guarded his copyrights. [archives.gov]
Re:Not just his family (Score:5, Interesting)
But he didn't mind plagiarizing others' work when it suited him. As in his dissertation. And part of his "I Have a Dream" speech was taken from Archibald Carey, another black preacher.
Re:Not just his family (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more proof that adjudicating ideas to specific people and their descendants or to ever-living corporations is insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
to attract attention to something which has/may remained/remain unnoticed.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:4, Insightful)
Cocaine !
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (Score:5, Funny)
I'll mod it how I damn well please.
Which is "not at all" now that you've posted.
ooooooh yes you can (Score:5, Informative)
oohhh but yes! You Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs [youtube.com]
The workaround is simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Create a parody under fair use, with the original audio track, and Martin Luther King flying though space emitting a rainbow.
Re: The workaround is simple. (Score:5, Funny)
Nyan King!
Re: (Score:2)
It would be completely tasteless, but I'd love to see the video with MLK in whiteface.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod up, that's the actual link. It might be a good idea to snag a copy of the speech and seed it. Chances are decent that it might get DCMAed into oblivion.
Re:ooooooh yes you can (Score:4, Informative)
No I can't. When I click on that link, I get this: "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights. Sorry about that."
This one [thepiratebay.org] seems to work, though. It may not be legal in all countries, but I'm fairly sure King made his speech for people to listen to it, not to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of places where the original content is available, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig it all out again. Look at the story from last year if anyone has the desire.
Re: (Score:2)
oohhh but yes! You Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs [youtube.com]
Thank you for finding and posting that link!
I'm listening to it right now, and you'd think this is obvious but - there are some things that are simply too important to be restricted under copyright.
"I have a dream ......" (Score:5, Funny)
".......... 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 ...
Re:"I have a dream ......" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
i sense a business opportunity here ...
Re:"I have a dream ......" (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry, they had the speech digitally remastered to replace that line with something about a walkie-talkie.
Re:"I have a dream ......" (Score:5, Funny)
apparently, that one just remained a dream ...
Don't worry, they had the speech digitally remastered to replace that line with something about a walkie-talkie.
Malcolm X shot first.
Mod parent... (Score:4)
Re:Mod parent... (Score:4, Interesting)
But, but ... this is capitalism at its very best!
Re:Mod parent... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
To reframe the issue a bit, we don
Similar with Cesar Chavez's family (Score:3)
The family is almost unconcerned about his legacy and farm workers, focusing on their own wealth.
I don't get it.... (Score:5, Informative)
So how is it impossible to view the speech without giving the Kings $10?
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
What better way to encourage him to create new works?
Dup (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
The point of copyright is to expand public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:The point of copyright is to expand public doma (Score:5, Funny)
1 million years is also a 'limited' time.
2038? (Score:5, Funny)
MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his speech (Score:5, Informative)
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.)"
Re:MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his spee (Score:5, Informative)
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.
A new level of dupe-ness (Score:5, Interesting)
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]
You want copyright to protect the content creator? (Score:2)
-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).
Re: (Score:2)
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 steri
Was it copyrighted before the speech was given? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Abolish Copyrights and Patents (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong by example. [go.com] And if you can't provide the same value that Louis C.K. provided with this show that he sold exclusively over the Internet without any copyright protection scams, then your work isn't worth the effort as far as the market is concerned.
New bulletin (Score:2)
"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...
Copyrighting culture (Score:2)
2038 (Score:3)
Doesn't that date have something to do with Unix' clock rolling over?
Re: (Score:2)
More bizarre than I imagined (Score:4, Insightful)
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 too damn long (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My proposal (Score:3)
It'll never happen, but I think it would work.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Really? I found it on youtube in about 10 seconds (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs [youtube.com]
what planet is this article from (Score:2)
Director's cut (Score:2)
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.
Copy available from archive.org (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)