4 ms·

It's also how they can protect it from being used in ways they disagree with.

by comrh 3y ago

slim 3y ago
they don't have any legitimacy to disagree with any use of it
tudorw 3y ago
very salient point, similar rights also cover musicians from having their music associated with something obnoxious
- randombits0 3y ago
  Not very often. Music is mostly licensed through ASCAP/BMI. The musician, if signed to a label, has no choice in the matter “They don’t have my permission to use my music!” They didn’t need it, you’re getting paid, shut up and be the whore like the contract you signed says you are.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Impressive strawman, would cheerfully torch again.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > …shut up and be the whore like the contract you signed says you are. Setting aside your concerns about how poor, helpless politicians are being bullied by all-powerful artists, the fact is that licenses often have carve-outs for conventions and other campaign events. Artists can also prevent use by arguing that it infringes on their Right of Publicity or the Lanham Act.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
One of my very first blog posts (on blogger IIRR) was about me searching for some info on MLK and finding the second or third link on Google (this would have been 2004/5?) - and only after reading it twice in confusion did I work out it was hosted by stormfront.org and basically was ... well emphasising possible plagiarism in phd and possible affairs. You know a mud slinging operation. I thought google could cleverly use attributes in anchor links like "Disapprove". Anyway the point I am badly making is that I am pretty sure the educational value of his speech on say wikipedia outweighs the benefit of dragging some idiot remixing it to say rude things through the courts.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  You know, MLK did plagiarize significant portions of his dissertation: https://archive.is/20210120053741/https://www.chronicle.com/article/plagiarism-by-martin-luther-king-affirmed-by-scholars-at-boston-u/ https://archive.is/20210120053741/https://www.chronicle.com/...
- Larrikin 3y ago
  We had a class the first year of high school that taught various skills every quarter. Things like giving presentations, properly using the scientific method, etc. The writing and researching papers component used that specific site as an example for making sure you dive into the source of "information" and making sure you have corroborating evidence. She would ask the students to check it out, and use the various techniques we knew already to evaluate it. Pretty much every student would fail and call it trust worthy and she would then reveal that it (at the time) was run by one of the largest group of white supremacists on the internet. Not sure if the librarian who taught the class still uses that site, but as a 13 year old it was a very powerful lesson.
pessimizer 3y ago
Not a good thing. Also not working out well; MLK's kids aren't MLK. There's also no reason to believe that whoever they'd decide to sell the copyrights to has any sort of moral authority. They could sell it to Elon Musk or Unilever.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  Always makes me cringe when I hear some counter culture artist' song in a car commercial.
anigbrowl 3y ago
I really don't favor this, although I completely understand that they would want to prevent it being exploited in political advertising. Ironically, keeping King's legacy behind a paywall exacerbates the the very inequality he deplored and limits public access to an understanding of his ideas in the round. So instead we get smarmy politicians that exploit 1 or 2 particularly famous lines of his to shut down rather than open up discussion. By selectively quoting him, they inoculate themselves from criticism, suggesting that attacks on the politician's character or policies are actually attacks on the MLK lapel badge they are (metaphorically) wearing.
WalterBright 3y ago
Why does a speech need to be "protected"? What about all the historical speeches that are in the public domain?

It's also how they can protect it from being used in ways they disagree with.

by comrh 3y ago

It's also how they can protect it from being used in ways they disagree with.

slim 3y ago

they don't have any legitimacy to disagree with any use of it

tudorw 3y ago

very salient point, similar rights also cover musicians from having their music associated with something obnoxious

randombits0 3y ago
Not very often. Music is mostly licensed through ASCAP/BMI. The musician, if signed to a label, has no choice in the matter “They don’t have my permission to use my music!” They didn’t need it, you’re getting paid, shut up and be the whore like the contract you signed says you are.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Impressive strawman, would cheerfully torch again.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > …shut up and be the whore like the contract you signed says you are. Setting aside your concerns about how poor, helpless politicians are being bullied by all-powerful artists, the fact is that licenses often have carve-outs for conventions and other campaign events. Artists can also prevent use by arguing that it infringes on their Right of Publicity or the Lanham Act.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

One of my very first blog posts (on blogger IIRR) was about me searching for some info on MLK and finding the second or third link on Google (this would have been 2004/5?) - and only after reading it twice in confusion did I work out it was hosted by stormfront.org and basically was ... well emphasising possible plagiarism in phd and possible affairs. You know a mud slinging operation. I thought google could cleverly use attributes in anchor links like "Disapprove". Anyway the point I am badly making is that I am pretty sure the educational value of his speech on say wikipedia outweighs the benefit of dragging some idiot remixing it to say rude things through the courts.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
You know, MLK did plagiarize significant portions of his dissertation: https://archive.is/20210120053741/https://www.chronicle.com/article/plagiarism-by-martin-luther-king-affirmed-by-scholars-at-boston-u/ https://archive.is/20210120053741/https://www.chronicle.com/...
Larrikin 3y ago
We had a class the first year of high school that taught various skills every quarter. Things like giving presentations, properly using the scientific method, etc. The writing and researching papers component used that specific site as an example for making sure you dive into the source of "information" and making sure you have corroborating evidence. She would ask the students to check it out, and use the various techniques we knew already to evaluate it. Pretty much every student would fail and call it trust worthy and she would then reveal that it (at the time) was run by one of the largest group of white supremacists on the internet. Not sure if the librarian who taught the class still uses that site, but as a 13 year old it was a very powerful lesson.

pessimizer 3y ago

Not a good thing. Also not working out well; MLK's kids aren't MLK. There's also no reason to believe that whoever they'd decide to sell the copyrights to has any sort of moral authority. They could sell it to Elon Musk or Unilever.

WeylandYutani 3y ago
Always makes me cringe when I hear some counter culture artist' song in a car commercial.

anigbrowl 3y ago

I really don't favor this, although I completely understand that they would want to prevent it being exploited in political advertising. Ironically, keeping King's legacy behind a paywall exacerbates the the very inequality he deplored and limits public access to an understanding of his ideas in the round. So instead we get smarmy politicians that exploit 1 or 2 particularly famous lines of his to shut down rather than open up discussion. By selectively quoting him, they inoculate themselves from criticism, suggesting that attacks on the politician's character or policies are actually attacks on the MLK lapel badge they are (metaphorically) wearing.

WalterBright 3y ago

Why does a speech need to be "protected"? What about all the historical speeches that are in the public domain?