'I Have a Dream' Posted in Defiance of Copyright for Internet Freedom Day
mashable.com
mashable.com
This is even more apt than you think:
"In the 1987 documentary Eyes on the Prize about the US Civil Rights Movement, there was a birthday party scene in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s discouragement began to lift. After its initial release, the film was unavailable for sale or broadcast for many years because of the cost of clearing many copyrights, of which "Happy Birthday to You" was one. Grants in 2005 for copyright clearances[15] have allowed PBS to rebroadcast the film as recently as February 2008.[16]"
Still, your point on the absurdity of this is well taken.
In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech, which he delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated, Dr. King called the United States, quote, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” Time magazine called the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” The Washington Post said King, quote, “diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”
Today, we’ll let you decide. We play an excerpt of Dr. King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/16/special_dr_martin_luth...
It's definitely one of most moving speeches of all time, but being a pessimist, I can't help but wonder what Dr. King would have thought about equal rights for atheists, homosexuals, and women.
> "We think we have an excellent argument for Fair Use since it is clearly part of political speech and we are not making any money off it."
So which one is it, guys? Not illegal if it's fair use.
The most relaxed guidelines are probably in the educational domain. But even then, you, as a teacher, can't just tape the "I Have a Dream" broadcast and show it in its entirety from year to year:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...
> Nonprofit educational institutions can record television programs transmitted by network television and cable stations. The institution can keep the tape for 45 days, but can only use it for instructional purposes during the first ten of the 45 days. After the first ten days, the video recording can only be used for teacher evaluation purposes, to determine whether or not to include the broadcast program in the teaching curriculum. If the teacher wants to keep it within the curriculum, he or she must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The recording may be played once by each individual teacher in the course of related teaching activities in classrooms and similar places devoted to instruction (including formalized home instruction). The recorded program can be repeated once if necessary, although there are no standards for determining what is and is not necessary. After 45 days, the recording must be erased or destroyed.
I'm not saying I "like" how "I Have a Dream" is under lock-and-key...I'm just annoyed at how people interpret the "fair" in "fair use" as, "It's ok as long as I'm being altruistic and a good person about it"
Deference to copyright has gone too far.
I wish that line of analysis was extended more liberally into other areas of 1st amendment law, the "is there another equivalent way to deliver this political message?" test.
It could be used as the foundation for a new plank of fair use, and in this case, a claim that there's no other way to fully illustrate what is lost by expansive copyright restrictions on politically relevant media without showing the most powerful clips burdened by these protections.
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6110040/Martin_Luther_King__I...
* Abolish the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
* Intellectual property should be taxed like real property. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1... It is an asset with a value, right? If you no longer make enough to pay your taxes on it, it goes to the state to dispose of.
* Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to create. One that lasts unto your grandchildren are a dis-incentive, because not only are you not creating any more once you are dead, neither are your descendants. Copyright should last half a working lifetime (20 years), to encourage people to continue to create.
* Someone who makes copies without permission should pay a fine, but it should be at the regular royalty rate for the item x copies made. So upload a song, it's iTunes price x number of downloads, with perhaps a factor of 3 penalty to discourage doing it, not $150,000 per copy.
If you care about copyright reform, you can donate money to the EFF or at least sign this petition urging reform. http://www.fightforthefuture.org/fixcopyright
[Void where prohibited by law.]
"Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."
1) magnet:?xt=urn:btih:f8b92a305da8a7d12081cd348ba9859b299b3486&dn=Martin+Luther+King%7E+I+Have+A+Dream+Mp4&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80
On the media also did a report: http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jan/13/dr-martin-luther-king-...
transcript: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jan/14/dr-martin-luther-king-...
I mean, this HN page. Margins are messed up.
This is actually an interesting part of the culture around copyright: People seem to think copyright law is actually about plagiarism, so as long as they explicitly say they don't own something they're in the clear. It doesn't work like that, but it's how people seem to want the law to work.
What's more, plagiarism is reliably punished using whatever social means the community has. As we see here, in fact: Mentioning it is pretty much the only recourse left, so that's what we do.
I demand to be treated equally. that means when a senator gets caught bribing for millions in personal gain, he gets put away for 35 years, as an example.