3 ms·

Personal question: Do you believe that this speech not being in the public domain promotes the progress of science and useful arts?

sp332 15y ago
My opinion isn't the one that matters. And of course the law would have to apply equally to everyone. We can't make exceptions for speeches we would really like to have in the public domain vs. boring speeches. I don't think the Berne convention is perfect, but generally, I like the idea that "As soon as a work is 'fixed', that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires." (wikipedia)
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Hey mate, I'm not asking you for a legally binding decision, I'm just asking your opinion on the matter. I suppose I'll have to assume you don't think that it does, since you're evading the question.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Your question was a non sequitur, quoting a piece of the constitution (which applies to all works made in the US equally) and then asking my opinion about one specific speech. I would say that, now that the speech is made, it would be good to have it in the public domain. But if we put all the speeches in the public domain, professional speechwriters would find it much harder to make a living. So in general, I wouldn't recommend that kind of behavior. To answer your question, I don't think MLK's speech was either science nor a "useful art" so it wouldn't have an effect either way.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      If you don't think the question of benefit to society is relevant to this discussion.... well, that isn't my problem. "if we put all the speeches in the public domain, professional speechwriters would find it much harder to make a living" Yeah. If I were to give a public performance of this speech in my public library that would really hurt speechwriters. I'll give you a hint, it works like this: Person A needs a speech. They ask Person B to write one. Person B agrees in exchange for money. They both sign a contract. Person A receives the speech. Person B gets paid per the contract. Person A gives the speech. Person C through Z copy the speech and give it themselves. Nobody cares.
      - sp332 15y ago
        Person A needs a speech. They can't pay person B enough for person B to make a living as a speechwriter. Person A writes themselves a crappy speech that no one wants to copy. The end. Is that really better than: Person A needs a speech. Person B writes a speech for them and collects $x royalties when person A gives it, and each time person C-Z (who really liked it) give it. Now everyone gets a good speech, and person B is actually able to write speeches for a living.
        angersock 15y ago
        The fact that B can't make enough to make a living off of speeches implies to me that speeches might not actually be that valuable. Why do we need to make it so that B can make a living off of speeches? That's stupid. B has no more claim to make a living off of speeches than I do to make a living writing Python. The whole reason capitalism is supposed to work is that it properly allocates resources--and if speeches aren't actually worth enough to make a living on, maybe you should do something besides writing speeches.
        sp332 15y ago
        To be clear: are you anti-copyright completely? It's about tragedy of the commons. When each person is looking out for their own interests, they might not think that e.g. filmmakers are worth the millions of dollars it takes to make a movie. Then out society wouldn't have any big-budget movies, and we'd all be worse off. But of they get copyright and can charge theaters for showing the movies, then they can make the movies. And our society in general is better off.

sp332 15y ago

My opinion isn't the one that matters. And of course the law would have to apply equally to everyone. We can't make exceptions for speeches we would really like to have in the public domain vs. boring speeches. I don't think the Berne convention is perfect, but generally, I like the idea that "As soon as a work is 'fixed', that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires." (wikipedia)

burgerbrain 15y ago
Hey mate, I'm not asking you for a legally binding decision, I'm just asking your opinion on the matter. I suppose I'll have to assume you don't think that it does, since you're evading the question.
- sp332 15y ago
  Your question was a non sequitur, quoting a piece of the constitution (which applies to all works made in the US equally) and then asking my opinion about one specific speech. I would say that, now that the speech is made, it would be good to have it in the public domain. But if we put all the speeches in the public domain, professional speechwriters would find it much harder to make a living. So in general, I wouldn't recommend that kind of behavior. To answer your question, I don't think MLK's speech was either science nor a "useful art" so it wouldn't have an effect either way.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    If you don't think the question of benefit to society is relevant to this discussion.... well, that isn't my problem. "if we put all the speeches in the public domain, professional speechwriters would find it much harder to make a living" Yeah. If I were to give a public performance of this speech in my public library that would really hurt speechwriters. I'll give you a hint, it works like this: Person A needs a speech. They ask Person B to write one. Person B agrees in exchange for money. They both sign a contract. Person A receives the speech. Person B gets paid per the contract. Person A gives the speech. Person C through Z copy the speech and give it themselves. Nobody cares.
    - sp332 15y ago
      Person A needs a speech. They can't pay person B enough for person B to make a living as a speechwriter. Person A writes themselves a crappy speech that no one wants to copy. The end. Is that really better than: Person A needs a speech. Person B writes a speech for them and collects $x royalties when person A gives it, and each time person C-Z (who really liked it) give it. Now everyone gets a good speech, and person B is actually able to write speeches for a living.
      - angersock 15y ago
        The fact that B can't make enough to make a living off of speeches implies to me that speeches might not actually be that valuable. Why do we need to make it so that B can make a living off of speeches? That's stupid. B has no more claim to make a living off of speeches than I do to make a living writing Python. The whole reason capitalism is supposed to work is that it properly allocates resources--and if speeches aren't actually worth enough to make a living on, maybe you should do something besides writing speeches.
        sp332 15y ago
        To be clear: are you anti-copyright completely? It's about tragedy of the commons. When each person is looking out for their own interests, they might not think that e.g. filmmakers are worth the millions of dollars it takes to make a movie. Then out society wouldn't have any big-budget movies, and we'd all be worse off. But of they get copyright and can charge theaters for showing the movies, then they can make the movies. And our society in general is better off.