Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

411 comments

Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (0, Redundant)

cyachallenge (2521604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729740)

Mod parent Informative :)

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730112)

Mod parent redundant :)

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (2, Funny)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730298)

Mod parent insightul :)

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730292)

I'll mod it how I damn well please. Why do people post these "instructions"?!

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730410)

to attract attention to something which has/may remained/remain unnoticed.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729760)

Typical monkey shines of the mudraces.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729772)

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 (5, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730062)

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:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730200)

Did Mr. Shakespeare have an estate? If so, who was the beneficiary? His son, Hamnet, predeceased him. Perhaps his wife's family?

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

gurudyne (126096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730404)

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 (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729782)

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

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729794)

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?

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730594)

Well, there were certainly portable tape recorders and 8mm cameras back then, but no sound-on-film cameras for home use.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730012)

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:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730232)

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:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730586)

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.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (2)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730356)

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.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730438)

The Kennedy assassination was filmed by at least 3 different bystanders (Zapruder, etc). However, black people didn't have any video cameras since they didn't start stealing and looting shit until the late 60s.

How is it different from a play? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730190)

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:How is it different from a play? (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730344)

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

Re:How is it different from a play? (2)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730392)

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:How is it different from a play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730546)

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.

John Q. Public has the right over their image. They just don't bother to exercise that right.

Re:How is it different from a play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730450)

Except a play is a performance, and a speech is a mass communication, even if it was done by an actor that memorized it before hand. If you assume that a public speech is copyrightable, then what about speeches to smaller groups? Does this mean all conversations, especially if a one sided delivery is used, become copyrighted?

I can see applying copyright laws to a play. I can see it applying to a work about a speech. But the speech itself, especially when considered a historical touchpoint and event, no.

Feel free to disagree with me, but I haven't heard a good argument yet for why my opinions on this should change.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729936)

Somewhat correct in that the family is claiming a copyright, but most people's guess is if it went to court the court would rule it a public speech with no expectation of copyrights at the time it was given and therefore no copyright on the speech really exists. I know it is politically incorrect to say but the only reason nobody has taken it to court is no media organization wants to challenge them since they would be labelled racists since the King family has made it pretty clear they are playing the race card with respect to any money that can be made off of MLK. I heard they even demanded and got some hush money payment for the recent National Mall monument from the federal government on similar image and quote copyright claims.

Family conflict exposes copyright flaws (1)

DanDD (1857066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729940)

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.

Nein. (3, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730136)

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 (4, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730216)

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 (5, Interesting)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730332)

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:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

Twanfox (185252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730350)

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 for that period of time or an estimated date based on the average lifespan for that generation.

I mean, if copyright is TRULY to be incentive for creating more works, exactly how do you give incentive for a dead person to create more for us? Allowing copyright to persist for the estate, beyond a reasonable period in cases of a quick demise after a work's creation, does nothing to further the creation of creative works. This is especially true if the estate or children are not creatively-inclined.

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (1)

bromodrosis (639957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730384)

The King family has done all it can for as long as it can to squeeze every penny out of MLK that they could. Ask yourself "Why wasn't all of this put in a trust of some kind where it could be used to benefit all people? "

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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 freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

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.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (5, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730458)

I Have A Dream [youtube.com]

Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730526)

$800,000 paid to the family by the people who built a monument to him.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_4DTe3bj9QcHd7Y2Hpvmp1O#ixzz1VsrERx3p

I need spinnaz my niggaz (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729764)

How's I supposed to bling out my slab with 22" spinners if I don't sell daddy's speech?

I can't get no fine black ass when my rims stop with muh car.

I need spinnaz my niggaz!

I have a dream, that all you niggas pay $10 to listen to speech so I can get paid.

ooooooh yes you can (5, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#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]

The workaround is simple. (4, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729902)

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. (4, Funny)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730072)

Create a parody under fair use, with the original audio track, and Martin Luther King flying though space emitting a rainbow.

Nyan King!

Re:The workaround is simple. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730210)

It would be completely tasteless, but I'd love to see the video with MLK in whiteface.

Re:ooooooh yes you can (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729996)

No I can not.
"Dieses Video ist in Deutschland leider nicht verfügbar, da es möglicherweise Musik enthält, für die die erforderlichen Musikrechte von der GEMA nicht eingeräumt wurden. "

"Sorry, but this video is not available in Germany because it might contain music for which the GEMA has not granted rights."
The GEMA is the German MAFIAA, collecting artist royalties for everybody. And WTF has MLK to do with some shitty background music anyways?
Go fuck yourself, GEMA.

Re:ooooooh yes you can (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730042)

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.

"I have a dream ......" (4, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729798)

".......... 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 ......" (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730304)

I'm going to take your word that was in the speech, since it would cost me $10 to look it up.

Re:"I have a dream ......" (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730336)

i sense a business opportunity here ...

Re:"I have a dream ......" (3, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730406)

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.

Mod parent... (3)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#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... (3, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729962)

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

Re:Mod parent... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730070)

It actually is, and I don't know why you're sputtering - you can just go back and edit the text to remove the "but, but..." sputter, you know.

Basically it being copyrighted has generated wealth. People have decided that they are willing to do work for 2 minutes or 10 minutes or even an hour to earn the money to pay to see that video. It has generated real work, and people wanting to work to buy something is what spins the wheels of the economy.

Not that's I'd grant copyrights like that anyway, just that it's not a black and white situation where you can argue it's entirely useless and evil to allow someone to "own" a piece of American history like that.

Re:Mod parent... (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730256)

Basically it being copyrighted has generated wealth. People have decided that they are willing to do work for 2 minutes or 10 minutes or even an hour to earn the money to pay to see that video. It has generated real work, and people wanting to work to buy something is what spins the wheels of the economy.

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:Mod parent... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730014)

nobility huh? mlk jr. is nothing of the sort.

1) Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarized his doctorate thesis. This is the biggest case of academic plagiarism in US history. The “mainstream” media censors this fact. In the 1980s Boston University officials confirmed that King did in fact plagiarize his thesis paper, but claimed that they did not know it was plagiarized at the time it was accepted by the University. The officials said they could revoke his doctorate, but that revocation would serve “no purpose.”

2) Martin Luther King was a notorious user of prostitutes and even had multiple prostitutes in his hotel room the day he was murdered.

3) In 1957 King attended a training seminar run by Highlander Folk School. The “school” was a training center set up by the Communist Party. King attended with several known members of the Communist Party. The subject matter of the seminar was on instigating race riots.

4) For five years King’s personal secretary was a long time Communist Party member. He was also a convicted WWII draft-dodger, a homosexual, and had a conviction for a lewd act in public. King completely surrounded himself with known members of the Communist Party.

5) Contrary to what has been claimed by King’s descendants, MLK never met Ghandi, nor did Ghandi ever endorse MLK. In fact, Ghandi was a major advocate of racial segregation while living in South Africa.

6) FBI Assistant Director Sullivan stated after King’s murder that the Bureau has evidence King embezzled money from the SCLC to finance his prostitution habit. King’s widow successfully lobbied congress to seal the FBI’s records on King for fifty years.

Get it together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729804)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=i+have+a+dream

The video is literally the fourth link on the page. And served from Youtube. /facepalm

well, as the bumper stickers say... (1)

australopithecus (215774) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729806)

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE

sigh.

Re:well, as the bumper stickers say... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730242)

Of course not, it's copyrighted and trademarked. Why do you think we keep invading those countries around the world to spread Democracy(TM)?

Similar with Cesar Chavez's family (2)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729816)

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

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

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:I don't get it.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729918)

DMCA takedown notice in 3... 2...

MLK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729844)

He died so his descendants could be free to lock history away from everyone.

Re:MLK (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730212)

Sounds like BSD vs GPL.... (and no... not trolling, but some people like the idea that they need to be free to deny others freedom as otherwise it would not be freedom).

IF Martin Luther King Jr were about choose between GPL or BSD, I would place my bet he would have chose GPL because it gives ultimatum freedom to everyone.

Re:MLK (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730564)

You're an idiot. The BSD license doesn't allow subsequent users/adopters to retroactively revoke the license of the original work.

Re:MLK (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730276)

History is written by the winners. The King family won bigtime at the bank with this.

Obviously (5, Insightful)

Glith (7368) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729846)

What better way to encourage him to create new works?

Dup (4, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729852)

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.

The point of copyright is to expand public domain (5, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:The point of copyright is to expand public doma (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729992)

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.

Re:The point of copyright is to expand public doma (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730028)

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.

Re:The point of copyright is to expand public doma (4, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730396)

1 million years is also a 'limited' time.

Re:The point of copyright is to expand public doma (2, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730090)

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.

Frist p0sot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38729882)

2038? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

MLK Jr. himself sued to prevent use of his speech (5, Informative)

nsanders (208050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38729958)

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.)"

"I Have a Dream"(c) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730054)

I think it should be copyright it or maybe trade mark it as well?
"I Have a Dream"(c)(tm)

novel idea to consider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730102)

Free at last, Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at las... oh... wait...

A new level of dupe-ness (4, Interesting)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730110)

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? (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730124)

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).

Re:You want copyright to protect the content creat (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730464)

-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?

Re:You want copyright to protect the content creat (1)

phik (2368654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730502)

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.

Entitlement Mentality of the day (-1, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730128)

I can't immediately get exactly what I want for free, therefore the law is "out of control" and a "nightmare".

Re:Entitlement Mentality of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730380)

Entitlement mentality of the day:

My dad did something people liked, so people should pay me money to view the video of it.

Was it copyrighted before the speech was given? (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730138)

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.

Copyright = Censorship; Piracy = Freedom of Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730194)

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.

Abolish Copyrights and Patents (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730202)

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:Abolish Copyrights and Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730538)

No, copyright and patents are necessary, but they need revision. Stop and consider the following: I spend 18 months writing a book (maybe it's fiction. maybe it's technical, it doesn't matter). Without some form of copyright, as soon as I publish it, there is nothing to stop others republishing my work. If this happens, I do not get paid, and cannot afford to continue writing books.

Congratulations, sheep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730240)

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.

New bulletin (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730278)

"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 (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730280)

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.

2038 (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730302)

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

Speaking of copyright... (0)

ski9826 (2541112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730328)

Has anyone addressed the fact that this speech was plagiarized by MLK from Archibald Carey?

More bizarre than I imagined (3, Insightful)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Life + 70 is too damn long (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (3, Insightful)

Meeni (1815694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730572)

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:Political speech (2)

Meeni (1815694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730588)

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.

Bummer Martin Luther King Jr. Stole "I Have a Dre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730370)

Martin Luther King Jr. took his “I Have a Dream Speech” from a Black Republican Without ever giving proper credit to that Republican.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/01/bummer-martin-luther-king-jr-stole-i-have-a-dream-speech-from-black-republican/ [thegatewaypundit.com]

Full text of the speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730376)

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 freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

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.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Re:Full text of the speech (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730474)

Thanks

Just Sayin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730422)

Can't find it on youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

MLK relatives legal mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38730484)

MLK relatives will surely not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Hyperbole (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38730490)

If further proof were needed that copyright law was out of control in the U.S.

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.

My proposal (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...