5 ms·

Well, I do believe that a work can become so important that it shouldn't be copyrighted anymore. The most notable example is Martin Luther King's "I Have a Drea

by qq66 11y ago

Well, I do believe that a work can become so important that it shouldn't be copyrighted anymore. The most notable example is Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which is a national artifact more important than anything in the Smithsonian. It should be freely distributable to everyone in America who wants to watch it, instead it is under enforced copyright. Perhaps the government should purchase the copyright using eminent domain in cases like this.

nightpool 11y ago
Woah I haven't ever considered the possibility of applying eminent domain to copyright brb mind blown. That seems... incredibly reasonable and helpful. (no sarcasm)
tedunangst 11y ago
MLK could have dedicated the speech to public domain, had he so wished. Again, "if we like your speech we're going to take it" -> not a great incentive.
- pyre 11y ago
  On the other hand, are you going to argue that the existence of copyright is what caused MLK to write said speech? In the absence of copyright, we never would have had the "I have a dream" speech?
  - linkydinkandyou 11y ago
    Except Dr. King didn't write the speech. From Wikipedia: "The speech was drafted with the assistance of Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones[17] in Riverdale, New York City. Jones has said that "the logistical preparations for the march were so burdensome that the speech was not a priority for us" and that, "on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 27, [12 hours before the March] Martin still didn't know what he was going to say"." I'm not so sure these people would appreciate the fact that you think they should work without being compensated for it, or that somehow, compensation and/or ownership isn't a good reason to do something.
    - salvadors 11y ago
      I suspect the primary compensation they hoped to get for that particular speech was _not_ financial.
      - linkydinkandyou 11y ago
        People who write songs and materials for Churches do it to make a living. It's actually a big problem for folks who write songs and arrangements for Church Choirs--many of their customers don't feel they should be paid! I've been to conferences at Music and Musician trade shows where this very issue is discussed.
        6stringmerc 11y ago
        Right, and work for hire means a writer gets paid one time to do the job, and the residuals are owned by whomever hired the person do write the speech / book / song / lyrics / tambourine solo. Doesn't matter if it's churches or playing in jazz clubs, writing and making music for a living is a tough business. I've worked some churches that paid quite well - at least industry standard - and I could go online now on CraigsList and find 5+ requests per day asking for music volunteers because religion. In my experience, churches are simply another ill-informed group that frequently want all the benefits of live music without compensating for it. Same goes for well-meaning volunteer organizations.
        pyre 11y ago
        > many of their customers don't feel they should be paid This happens to physical products too, I don't see how specific individuals not wanting to pay for something has any bearing on the existence / effectiveness of copyright.
    - phaemon 11y ago
      Well, firstly speech-writers normally are compensated...they're paid for their work when they do it. Secondly, they're not the beneficiaries of the copyright: it belongs to the King estate.
    - 11y ago
jcranmer 11y ago
Actually, in US copyright law, it is possible for works to effectively lose their copyright. One of the elements of fair use (note: most jurisdictions do not have a fair use defense, so this only applies to the US) is that some things can become so important to the public interest that any reproduction is effectively fair use. The most notable use of this claim is the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination.

by qq66 11y ago

nightpool 11y ago

Woah I haven't ever considered the possibility of applying eminent domain to copyright brb mind blown. That seems... incredibly reasonable and helpful. (no sarcasm)

tedunangst 11y ago

MLK could have dedicated the speech to public domain, had he so wished. Again, "if we like your speech we're going to take it" -> not a great incentive.

pyre 11y ago
On the other hand, are you going to argue that the existence of copyright is what caused MLK to write said speech? In the absence of copyright, we never would have had the "I have a dream" speech?
- linkydinkandyou 11y ago
  Except Dr. King didn't write the speech. From Wikipedia: "The speech was drafted with the assistance of Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones[17] in Riverdale, New York City. Jones has said that "the logistical preparations for the march were so burdensome that the speech was not a priority for us" and that, "on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 27, [12 hours before the March] Martin still didn't know what he was going to say"." I'm not so sure these people would appreciate the fact that you think they should work without being compensated for it, or that somehow, compensation and/or ownership isn't a good reason to do something.
  - salvadors 11y ago
    I suspect the primary compensation they hoped to get for that particular speech was _not_ financial.
    - linkydinkandyou 11y ago
      People who write songs and materials for Churches do it to make a living. It's actually a big problem for folks who write songs and arrangements for Church Choirs--many of their customers don't feel they should be paid! I've been to conferences at Music and Musician trade shows where this very issue is discussed.
      - 6stringmerc 11y ago
        Right, and work for hire means a writer gets paid one time to do the job, and the residuals are owned by whomever hired the person do write the speech / book / song / lyrics / tambourine solo. Doesn't matter if it's churches or playing in jazz clubs, writing and making music for a living is a tough business. I've worked some churches that paid quite well - at least industry standard - and I could go online now on CraigsList and find 5+ requests per day asking for music volunteers because religion. In my experience, churches are simply another ill-informed group that frequently want all the benefits of live music without compensating for it. Same goes for well-meaning volunteer organizations.
      - pyre 11y ago
        > many of their customers don't feel they should be paid This happens to physical products too, I don't see how specific individuals not wanting to pay for something has any bearing on the existence / effectiveness of copyright.
  - phaemon 11y ago
    Well, firstly speech-writers normally are compensated...they're paid for their work when they do it. Secondly, they're not the beneficiaries of the copyright: it belongs to the King estate.
  - 11y ago

jcranmer 11y ago

Actually, in US copyright law, it is possible for works to effectively lose their copyright. One of the elements of fair use (note: most jurisdictions do not have a fair use defense, so this only applies to the US) is that some things can become so important to the public interest that any reproduction is effectively fair use. The most notable use of this claim is the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination.