Decius wrote:
] ] If King remains a one-dimensional grainy black-and-white
] ] figure who utters the same sunny sound bite year after
] ] year until it's a cliche, it's because news networks
] ] won't pay for more, and researchers have been kept from
] ] delving deep into his papers to tell us something new
] ] about the Martin Luther King the man, not the statuette.
] ]
] ] And his family wants it that way.
]
] And once again we are promoting science and the useful arts by
] creating economic incentives for people to engage in
] historical events by preventing people from talking about
] them.

Ryan: This timeI am going to have to drop some science on you. Once again, my Copyright prof represented the Estate of Doctor Martin Luther King Junior versus CBS, a landmark copyright case. There are two quick points to remember on this:

1) The estate only charges *normal* royalty rates to commercial entities who, after the MLK v. CBS, have a vendetta against paying for Dr. King's speechs. For any educational purpose, the King estate has *drastically* reduced rates for licensing the speeches, I believe down to $0. That's versus the hundreds of dollars CBS was charging educational institutions for the use of its video clips of the same speeches.

2) Dr. King copyrighted every one of his speeches. He was very much a supporter of copyright because he wanted to be able to control how his words would be used in the future. They could be reported on then, due to fair use (newsworthiness), but he knew there would come a time in the future where people would try to use it in a commercial manner for their own gain.

Now, as much as I have problems with the current IP restraints, this is a circumstance where someone acted to protect their rights for good reasons, and that should be enforced.

Decius wrote:
] ] If King remains a one-dimensional grainy black-and-white
] ] figure who utters the same sunny sound bite year after
] ] year until it's a cliche, it's because news networks
] ] won't pay for more, and researchers have been kept from
] ] delving deep into his papers to tell us something new
] ] about the Martin Luther King the man, not the statuette.
] ]
] ] And his family wants it that way.
]
] And once again we are promoting science and the useful arts by
] creating economic incentives for people to engage in
] historical events by preventing people from talking about
] them.

Ryan: This timeI am going to have to drop some science on you. Once again, my Copyright prof represented the Estate of Doctor Martin Luther King Junior versus CBS, a landmark copyright case. There are two quick points to remember on this:

1) The estate only charges *normal* royalty rates to commercial entities who, after the MLK v. CBS, have a vendetta against paying for Dr. King's speechs. For any educational purpose, the King estate has *drastically* reduced rates for licensing the speeches, I believe down to $0. That's versus the hundreds of dollars CBS was charging educational institutions for the use of its video clips of the same speeches.

2) Dr. King copyrighted every one of his speeches. He was very much a supporter of copyright because he wanted to be able to control how his words would be used in the future. They could be reported on then, due to fair use (newsworthiness), but he knew there would come a time in the future where people would try to use it in a commercial manner for their own gain.

Now, as much as I have problems with the current IP restraints, this is a circumstance where someone acted to protect their rights for good reasons, and that should be enforced.