I have to disagree with part of the premise. While the speech is copyrighted, that might not be the reason most people haven't read or seen the entirety of the speech. If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. There are probably a variety of other reasons why you don't see this speech taught in schools.
First one that comes to mind is its length. Unlike the Gettysburg Address, this isn't some short speech that could be easily recited from memory.
Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context. How many of the speeches listed here (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html) are really taught in school?
> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing.
No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech.
> First one that comes to mind is its length.
Have people stopped studying books or something?
> Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
I wouldn't.
> Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context.
It's quite obvious that the speech would be put in context by and used within civil rights study.
Good points. I disagree with more parts of the premise than you do. It says: "Documentaries can only include small, five-second clips. Take a moment and ask the people sitting near you if they’ve ever heard the opening lines:"
(It may be that since a news show isn't a documentary, it is one of the exceptions implied in 'most circumstances.')
I agree with you: the reason why 'ask the people sitting near you' works is likely more because - as you say - most people don't listen to speeches or watch documentaries with speeches in them.
I disagree with your religious imagery observation somewhat, because that speech doesn't include much in the way of religious imagery which needs to be explained. Looking through the copy at http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf , I see:
- references to the Gettysburg Address ("Five score years ago .. this hallowed spot")
- religious references ("captivity" can refer to the Babylonian captivity; "The whirlwinds of revolt" sounds like a reference to a verse from Hosea; "every valley shall be exalted ... all flesh shall see it together" is Isaiah 40:4-5.)
- Shakespeare ("This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent" is a reference to Richard III)
- perhaps Newton? ("meeting physical force with soul force" sound like "equal and opposite force")
- The Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal")
- the 1831 song "My Country 'Tis of Thee" (some 17 lines are a reference to the song)
This doesn't sound like any more use of religious imagery than other texts often taught in school. "To Kill a Mockingbird", for example, starts with a Methodist fleeing religious intolerance in England, and has an scene where the white children Scout and Jem go to Calpurnia's black church for a Sunday service.
I really don't think references to religion are a problem. My AP English class read parts of the Bible itself - because it has significant literary and historic importance even if you don't view it as a religious text. This is in a secular public school in a very liberal state only recently. Nobody objected, because if you start going down that road, you will have to throw out pretty much everything written before 1800.
There was a PBS Documentary, "Eyes on the Prize" which we bought on DVD as part of our home school curriculum. Then it was taken off the market as a dispute arose between the King family estate[1] and PBS. The King family gave only enough copy right to show the program on PBS, once. And any other use was not sanctioned, we loaned our copy to the high school so that they could show it to their students.
It was such a remarkably egregious thing, I was amazed that more people weren't up in arms about it.
>Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
At my (public) high school (10ish years ago), we had "character education", and one of the "character words" we had (there was a new one each month) was "respect for the Creator", which is:
A) Actually four words.
B) Insanely, crazy religious.
I assure you that the religious angle is not why this is not presented in full in schools.
I read the speech in English class when studying different types of writing assignments. We examined it for its structure rather than its content. Studying speeches may prove valuable when preparing oral presentations for instance.
A secular education doesn't mean it's devoid of religious literature. On the contrary, it probably means you get to explore religious texts from a variety of cultures and religions.
>>> I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I wonder how they deal with that religious imagery. Or they neglect to mention that unimportant document altogether?
I can understand when people object to school propagandizing religion or requiring some religious rites or observances from non-religious people. But completely removing a part of history because religion is mentioned there or certain figure was, in fact, a religious man? That's just insane, and anti-religious bigot would be as bad as a religious one.
"First one that comes to mind is its length. Unlike the Gettysburg Address, this isn't some short speech that could be easily recited from memory."
You are probably not learning it for recital to prove how clever you are, you are presumably reading it for study and analysis.
"Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school."
On what grounds? On that basis you couldn't have US school textbooks with translations of the letters of Christopher Columbus in them -
"In conclusion, to speak only of what has been accomplished on this voyage, which was so hasty, their Highnesses can see that I will give them as much gold as they may need, if their Highnesses will render me very slight assistance; presently, I will give them spices and cotton, as much as their Highnesses shall command… and slaves, as many as they shall order, and who will be from the idolaters. I believe also that I have found rhubarb and cinnamon, and I shall find a thousand other things of value, which the people whom I have left there will have discovered…
This is enough. And thus the eternal God, Our Lord, gives to all those who walk in His way triumph over things which appear to be impossible, and this was notably one. For, although men have talked or have written of these lands, all was conjectural, without ocular evidence. ... So that, since Our Redeemer has given the victory to our most illustrious King and Queen, and to their renowned kingdoms, in so great a matter, for this all Christendom ought to feel delight and make great feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity, with many solemn prayers for the great exaltation which they shall have in the turning of so many peoples to our holy faith, and afterwards for the temporal benefits, because not only Spain but all Christendom will have hence refreshment and gain."
- The conclusion to his letter to King Ferdinand of Spain.
At the very least it "chilled" the usage of that speech, because it's not very clear whether they will be targeted by the owners or not (they probably would be, which is reason enough not to use it, even if they are in the "right" to use it).
The speech is readily found by those who know how to Google. Perhaps more Americans would have read the speech if not for the crazy copyright laws, but I think most people haven't read it simply because most people aren't interested in reading historical speeches.
It's a little off-topic and a little cynical, but I think the larger issue here is that we've watered our teaching of history (and most things) down to soundbites and simple explanations. What we learned about Columbus, MLK, and all the founding fathers were stripped of everything controversial to create flawless heroes with views no PTA member would find offensive.
How many of the influential speeches in history have you read? I think Time's list is a good starting place. These were all inspiring, influential, and are all readily available for free:
> The speech is readily found by those who know how to Google.
Unfortunately, textbook are still a/the standard source of information in most public schools. Yes, this raises separate questions about the way that we structure our education system, but that's not the issue at hand.
The speech is readily found by those willing to go out of their way to look for it, but it is not included in most textbooks, because those publishers would then have to pay royalties to the King estate (and indirectly pass those costs along to the schools).
The video is much harder to find (legally, not illegally!), because the King estate controls it much more tightly.
> we've watered our teaching of history (and most things) down to soundbites
Exactly, or at least to neat narratives that are very much retrospectively constructed and do not really give a realistic picture of the messiness of how the events felt to those who were living through them. I think reading actual speeches, or documents written at the time gives a very complementary view to the neat narratives and insight into the value systems that people had at the time. Of course this is precisely the reason why reading them demands very much of the reader.
In general, I think, one should read more original works, and less later histories describing said works. It is more demanding, but also more satisfying.
> What we learned about Columbus, MLK, and all the founding fathers were stripped of everything controversial to create flawless heroes with views no PTA member would find offensive.
Svante Myrick makes this point pretty succinctly in this video [0]. He points out that all most people know about our history of slavery is "slavery, Abraham Lincoln, freedom". Or "blacks couldn't vote, MLK, blacks could vote". It's a ridiculously shallow comprehension of history.
Incidentally, please do take the 17 minutes to watch this speech (and perhaps follow along with yread's transcript link). It really is one of the greatest speeches ever given.
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.
It doesn't sound like they tried to kill him. They tried to prove an alignment with the communist party (and failed miserably). I can't believe the FBI honestly thought a note would drive him to suicide.
And, the U.S. government had to _pay_ the king family $800,000 for the rights to use his copyrighted words on the very statue built to memorialize him.
This completely ignores that companies will sell, and edit, popular public domain works for a profit, if they can.
It was initially a defensive copyright by the King, Jr. estate. Fox Records started selling records of the speech in 1968 [1]. And, CBS was rebroadcasting the speech for commercial purposes [2]. Only later did his family more strictly control the work and likeness of King, Jr. Otherwise, we might have seen the Dr. King, Jr. version of the Obama-hitler posters of 2008, or his face on a box of children's cereal.
Actually, I have read "I Have a Dream". In school. In multiple classes, at multiple schools, in different parts of the U.S. We also watched the video of the speech in class.
Copyright law isn't preventing the material from being taught. Teachers don't actually care about such restrictions. They ignore them and teach it anyway.
Not to excuse that, but if you give the average person a lever they can pull to cause $700k to get airdropped into their hands, I think the vast majority would. From a policy perspective, maybe we should rethink that lever.
From someone (not me) who's dealt with publishing excerpts in a book, at least one major publisher's lawyers have decided that the text of the speech was indeed a "public performance" - given in a public place, and broadcast on public radio - and therefore not under copyright. The King family are apparently notoriously insistent on high royalties for any use of the estate's copyrighted works, but they seem to only have a firm lock on the video recordings.
(Of course, this may be something that has yet to be tested in court, so Don't Try This At Home unless you have the money for a large lawsuit.)
I remember hearing the story of how the text was written and at the last minute, as copies were being made, the lawyer for King added the Circle C and copyright info. Apparently the King family has benefitted financially by that last minute addition.
Frankly, I can't imagine a better way to reward Dr. King, and his family, for such an amazing event and turning point in our history.
It's not like the money is going to AT&T or Microsoft.
On the Media did a great story on this [1]. If you've got 13 minutes to spare, they discuss the copyright issue and the actual construction and delivery of the speech itself.
[+] [-] slg|12 years ago|reply
First one that comes to mind is its length. Unlike the Gettysburg Address, this isn't some short speech that could be easily recited from memory.
Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context. How many of the speeches listed here (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html) are really taught in school?
[+] [-] masklinn|12 years ago|reply
No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech.
> First one that comes to mind is its length.
Have people stopped studying books or something?
> Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
I wouldn't.
> Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context.
It's quite obvious that the speech would be put in context by and used within civil rights study.
[+] [-] dalke|12 years ago|reply
I am one such. In fact, I heard it just the other day. It starts at 46:04 of http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/28/50_years_after_march_o... .
Democracy Now also has lengthy excerpts from MLK's "Beyond Vietnam" speech and his "I Have Been to the Mountain Top" (See http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/16/special_dr_martin_luth... ) and likely more speeches if you search the archives.
(It may be that since a news show isn't a documentary, it is one of the exceptions implied in 'most circumstances.')
I agree with you: the reason why 'ask the people sitting near you' works is likely more because - as you say - most people don't listen to speeches or watch documentaries with speeches in them.
I disagree with your religious imagery observation somewhat, because that speech doesn't include much in the way of religious imagery which needs to be explained. Looking through the copy at http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf , I see:
- references to the Gettysburg Address ("Five score years ago .. this hallowed spot")
- religious references ("captivity" can refer to the Babylonian captivity; "The whirlwinds of revolt" sounds like a reference to a verse from Hosea; "every valley shall be exalted ... all flesh shall see it together" is Isaiah 40:4-5.)
- Shakespeare ("This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent" is a reference to Richard III)
- perhaps Newton? ("meeting physical force with soul force" sound like "equal and opposite force")
- The Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal")
- the 1831 song "My Country 'Tis of Thee" (some 17 lines are a reference to the song)
This doesn't sound like any more use of religious imagery than other texts often taught in school. "To Kill a Mockingbird", for example, starts with a Methodist fleeing religious intolerance in England, and has an scene where the white children Scout and Jem go to Calpurnia's black church for a Sunday service.
[+] [-] krschultz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
It was such a remarkably egregious thing, I was amazed that more people weren't up in arms about it.
[1] http://www.current.org/2010/03/eyes-on-the-prize-triumphs-ov...
[+] [-] Spooky23|12 years ago|reply
See: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf
[+] [-] mistercow|12 years ago|reply
At my (public) high school (10ish years ago), we had "character education", and one of the "character words" we had (there was a new one each month) was "respect for the Creator", which is:
A) Actually four words.
B) Insanely, crazy religious.
I assure you that the religious angle is not why this is not presented in full in schools.
[+] [-] adcoelho|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cglee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|12 years ago|reply
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I wonder how they deal with that religious imagery. Or they neglect to mention that unimportant document altogether?
I can understand when people object to school propagandizing religion or requiring some religious rites or observances from non-religious people. But completely removing a part of history because religion is mentioned there or certain figure was, in fact, a religious man? That's just insane, and anti-religious bigot would be as bad as a religious one.
[+] [-] moocowduckquack|12 years ago|reply
You are probably not learning it for recital to prove how clever you are, you are presumably reading it for study and analysis.
"Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school."
On what grounds? On that basis you couldn't have US school textbooks with translations of the letters of Christopher Columbus in them -
"In conclusion, to speak only of what has been accomplished on this voyage, which was so hasty, their Highnesses can see that I will give them as much gold as they may need, if their Highnesses will render me very slight assistance; presently, I will give them spices and cotton, as much as their Highnesses shall command… and slaves, as many as they shall order, and who will be from the idolaters. I believe also that I have found rhubarb and cinnamon, and I shall find a thousand other things of value, which the people whom I have left there will have discovered…
This is enough. And thus the eternal God, Our Lord, gives to all those who walk in His way triumph over things which appear to be impossible, and this was notably one. For, although men have talked or have written of these lands, all was conjectural, without ocular evidence. ... So that, since Our Redeemer has given the victory to our most illustrious King and Queen, and to their renowned kingdoms, in so great a matter, for this all Christendom ought to feel delight and make great feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity, with many solemn prayers for the great exaltation which they shall have in the turning of so many peoples to our holy faith, and afterwards for the temporal benefits, because not only Spain but all Christendom will have hence refreshment and gain."
- The conclusion to his letter to King Ferdinand of Spain.
http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/Columbus%20to%20F...
"Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context."
What someone in the past said. Is part of learning about stuff, which is the context.
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ww3|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lowmagnet|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignostic|12 years ago|reply
It's a little off-topic and a little cynical, but I think the larger issue here is that we've watered our teaching of history (and most things) down to soundbites and simple explanations. What we learned about Columbus, MLK, and all the founding fathers were stripped of everything controversial to create flawless heroes with views no PTA member would find offensive.
How many of the influential speeches in history have you read? I think Time's list is a good starting place. These were all inspiring, influential, and are all readily available for free:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/...
If you have read even half of these, maybe then I'll buy the copyright argument.
[+] [-] chimeracoder|12 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, textbook are still a/the standard source of information in most public schools. Yes, this raises separate questions about the way that we structure our education system, but that's not the issue at hand.
The speech is readily found by those willing to go out of their way to look for it, but it is not included in most textbooks, because those publishers would then have to pay royalties to the King estate (and indirectly pass those costs along to the schools).
The video is much harder to find (legally, not illegally!), because the King estate controls it much more tightly.
[+] [-] jorleif|12 years ago|reply
Exactly, or at least to neat narratives that are very much retrospectively constructed and do not really give a realistic picture of the messiness of how the events felt to those who were living through them. I think reading actual speeches, or documents written at the time gives a very complementary view to the neat narratives and insight into the value systems that people had at the time. Of course this is precisely the reason why reading them demands very much of the reader.
In general, I think, one should read more original works, and less later histories describing said works. It is more demanding, but also more satisfying.
[+] [-] saraid216|12 years ago|reply
Svante Myrick makes this point pretty succinctly in this video [0]. He points out that all most people know about our history of slavery is "slavery, Abraham Lincoln, freedom". Or "blacks couldn't vote, MLK, blacks could vote". It's a ridiculously shallow comprehension of history.
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ-55mJlisk
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
"Inconsistent with the preferred simple narrative" is probably more accurate than "controversial" here.
[+] [-] abecedarius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yread|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clicks|12 years ago|reply
Incidentally, please do take the 17 minutes to watch this speech (and perhaps follow along with yread's transcript link). It really is one of the greatest speeches ever given.
[+] [-] ebspelman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterSear|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rthomas6|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpatrianakos|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] slacka|12 years ago|reply
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.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215archi...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/documentaries-old...
[+] [-] danielweber|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] betterunix|12 years ago|reply
Easy to say, but where is the proof? Bear in mind the history of copyright:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_anne
[+] [-] mullingitover|12 years ago|reply
Nope [1].
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/07/31...
[+] [-] mistercow|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewljohnson|12 years ago|reply
Also, MLK's comments on the Vietnam War were remarkably prescient, and apply just fine to our terrible wars today.
If you still believe that the USG is not, in places and at times, terribly evil and corrupt, you probably don't know about the USG's efforts to kill MLK: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/
[+] [-] scassidy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eplanit|12 years ago|reply
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/08/maya-angelou-u...)
[+] [-] unreal37|12 years ago|reply
Many know "Four score and seven years ago", but how many know "we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground"?
I think this says more about our "sound-bite" culture than how protective the family is of the audio.
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexjeffrey|12 years ago|reply
thank god for those who don't respect overzealous copyright holders.
[+] [-] alayne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jared314|12 years ago|reply
It was initially a defensive copyright by the King, Jr. estate. Fox Records started selling records of the speech in 1968 [1]. And, CBS was rebroadcasting the speech for commercial purposes [2]. Only later did his family more strictly control the work and likeness of King, Jr. Otherwise, we might have seen the Dr. King, Jr. version of the Obama-hitler posters of 2008, or his face on a box of children's cereal.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_spee...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_J....
[+] [-] sczkid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mintplant|12 years ago|reply
Copyright law isn't preventing the material from being taught. Teachers don't actually care about such restrictions. They ignore them and teach it anyway.
[+] [-] LukeShu|12 years ago|reply
For what it's worth, when MLK noticed he was failing to engage the audience, he went off-script and improvised a large portion of the speech.
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
I know copyright and such laws have their place, but when it comes down to it, this estate is just greedy above all else.
[+] [-] acjohnson55|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azernik|12 years ago|reply
(Of course, this may be something that has yet to be tested in court, so Don't Try This At Home unless you have the money for a large lawsuit.)
[+] [-] fnbaptiste|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrt0mat0|12 years ago|reply
http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
[+] [-] Macsenour|12 years ago|reply
Frankly, I can't imagine a better way to reward Dr. King, and his family, for such an amazing event and turning point in our history.
It's not like the money is going to AT&T or Microsoft.
[+] [-] jaynos|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jan/13/dr-martin-luther-king-...