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 deliver it?" Though he understood the significance of the march and probably knew his speech was important is there any evidence to suggest he knew how iconic it would become? And even if he did, was he going to forego addressing his audience, the people assembled at the Lincoln Memorial, to make a statement on copyright? It's doubtful. His speech was for the audience there. The fact that it could be reprinted and studied by future generations is just a bonus. The idea that King would be less likely to deliver his speech because of copyright is not realistic.
That said, this also isn't a convincing argument for the abolition of copyright either. I don't know if that was the point though. What this does show is how a copyright can serve the opposite of its intended purpose and hurt society. But for every case like the King speech there are plenty more that are examples of its benefit.
It's disappointing that we do not have free and open access to the I Have a Dream speech but its not a good argument against copyright. Copyright is still an issue that boils down to its use and has to be considered on a case by case basis. I don't think it ever has been all good or all bad and overlooking the vast sea of nuance there doesn't help proponents or opponents of it.
> But for every case like the King speech there are plenty more that are examples of its benefit.
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.
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.
King enforced the copyright and sold records of his speeches. He knew exactly what he was doing.
I don't know where the writer on the article got the idea that MLK would have agreed with the writer's current legal opinions.
Surely the author doesn't intend this as an argument for the abolition of all copyright. It's clearly an argument that copyright terms should be something less than one hundred and twenty years.
I agree. I think the question should be: Would Dr. King have kept it locked up by copyright? I don't think he would, but I have only my own faith to back that up.
Actually, he did. Before his death, Dr. King actively maintained the copyright on the speech, hoping that any profits from its distribution would be spent to help fund his causes.
Perhaps the question should be: Would Dr. King have kept it locked up by copyright for more than 50 years?
Actually, my question is this "SHOULD this speech (and other works) be kept locked up by copyright for more than 50 years?"
That said, this also isn't a convincing argument for the abolition of copyright either. I don't know if that was the point though. What this does show is how a copyright can serve the opposite of its intended purpose and hurt society. But for every case like the King speech there are plenty more that are examples of its benefit.
It's disappointing that we do not have free and open access to the I Have a Dream speech but its not a good argument against copyright. Copyright is still an issue that boils down to its use and has to be considered on a case by case basis. I don't think it ever has been all good or all bad and overlooking the vast sea of nuance there doesn't help proponents or opponents of it.