81–90 of 234 posts
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+have+a+dream&p... thank god for those who don't respect overzealous copyright holders.
Actually, I have read "I Have a Dream". In school. In multiple classes, at multiple schools, in different parts of the U.S. We also watched the video of the speech in class. Copyright law isn't preventing the material from being taught. Teachers don't actually care about such restrictions. They ignore them and teach it anyway.
Yet Fox News published it not two days ago: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/transcript-martin-luthe...
Unfortunately, the same can be said about textbook publishers, and most of them don't pay for it.
Worse, the video is much more heavily controlled by the King estate than the printed text.
The author here makes a good point until he asks his final question. In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King I don't believe copyright would have had any influence on the likelihood of delivering it. The purpose of the speech was selfless and so despite the copyright issue being disappointing it doesn't seem like he would have said "well, since future students won't be able to read the full text of my speech why delive…
How does extending copyright to 70 years after his death benefit our culture or the dead author? Do you honestly think there is even a single song or piece of literature that was not written because the author was concerned about his grandchildren retaining copyright control over his idea?
I appreciate that you're trying to take a balanced view, but you're missing the point that the laws have extended copyright to such absurd levels that they now damaging the cultural progress they are supposed to promote.
If you don't think this is a real issue, I suggest you read these two other examples of copyright destroying our cultural heritage.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215archi...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/documentaries-old...
I have to disagree with part of the premise. While the speech is copyrighted, that might not be the reason most people haven't read or seen the entirety of the speech. If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. There are probably a variety of other reasons why you don't see this speech taught in schools. First one that comes to mind is its length. Unl…
I both read and heard the speech entirely in high school back in the 80s. We spent something like 2-3 days on it and MLK's life during that period. Is the author (and submitter, who's the same person) working off a false premise?
A large portion of this was affected by a lawsuit from 1999, so keep that in mind[0][1]
Also, students today are not prevented from reading the speech; however, the teacher must find a copy online and print it out and distribute it to the students - the point is that most textbooks will not be able to publish/include it.
As for the video recording, yes that's been much more heavily restricted.
[0]http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/194_F3d_1211.htm [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_J....
The author here makes a good point until he asks his final question. In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King I don't believe copyright would have had any influence on the likelihood of delivering it. The purpose of the speech was selfless and so despite the copyright issue being disappointing it doesn't seem like he would have said "well, since future students won't be able to read the full text of my speech why delive…
Easy to say, but where is the proof? Bear in mind the history of copyright:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...
The speech is readily found by those who know how to Google. Perhaps more Americans would have read the speech if not for the crazy copyright laws, but I think most people haven't read it simply because most people aren't interested in reading historical speeches. It's a little off-topic and a little cynical, but I think the larger issue here is that we've watered our teaching of history (and most things) down to sou…
Unfortunately, textbook are still a/the standard source of information in most public schools. Yes, this raises separate questions about the way that we structure our education system, but that's not the issue at hand.
The speech is readily found by those willing to go out of their way to look for it, but it is not included in most textbooks, because those publishers would then have to pay royalties to the King estate (and indirectly pass those costs along to the schools).
The video is much harder to find (legally, not illegally!), because the King estate controls it much more tightly.
King himself sued people over the copyright. We need to be careful not to revise history and turn people who did great things into saints.
That's true. I should have cut the last paragraph before posting, but now that it's out there and people have read it, I think it's best to let it stand.