Martin Luther King Jr's Children In Court Over MLK IP 344
cervesaebraciator writes "Slashdot has reported before about the copyright nightmare of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' Speech. Now, questions of intellectual property and the legacy of Dr. King have caused his children to go to court. The estate, run by King's sons, claims the rights to the intellectual property and memorabilia of Dr. King as assets. Accordingly, it has filed suit against the non-profit Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Change, run by King's daughter, for plans to continue using King memorabilia once a royalty-free licensing agreement expires, (which the estate says will be in September). As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King."
Re:Copywritten? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
That the is whole idea behind the royalty-free organization that is going to court. They still own it. The summary sounds like a conflict of interest between siblings. The one that runs the organization to promote Reverend King's ideals, and the other siblings that want to cash in on the property. Am I understanding this correctly?
Re:End of a Dream (Score:0, Interesting)
Nope! You heard wrong. Where have you been getting your talking points? Which website did you obtain this "understanding" from?
I'm also interested to find out in which reality it is acceptable to assault someone based on nothing but words.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
You can shoot someone that jumps out of the shadows and starts beating your head in. That's actually legal virtually everywhere, including all over Europe. In most of Europe, it's very difficult for an individual citizen to legally carry the weapon to begin with, of course, but the right to self defense is hardly a US invention.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about the law in your state (I don't know what your state is), but per the one I know the best (Arizona), you can't claim self-defense in a fight you started unless you express a desire to withdraw and the other party doesn't let you. However, following someone to see if they're up to no good doesn't count as "provocation", I would imagine.
As far as 2), the law allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself against "serious physical injury". There's no requirement of weapons. A barfight between equally-matched participants doesn't count, but (say) a very strong attacker against a much weaker defender does. Getting your head pounded into the pavement certainly does, as Zimmerman claims.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:3, Interesting)
MLK's legacy has largely been decimated by those who claim to support him the most.
Funny, I didn't think the Supreme Court claimed to be one of MLKs supporters when they ruled on the Voting Rights Act.
People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are now seen as civil rights leaders, basically threw that out completely.and shit on it at almost every turn. Groups like the NAACP are pushing for criminal prosecution of, for example, the rodeo clown who made fun of Obama, even though people in much bigger areas of the limelight have done much worse things to make fun of other presidents. George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there which is why they originally chose not to prosecute, and only did so after pressure from racial groups, which goes to show that in America, now the only requirement for prosecution is that public opinion be against you regardless of whether or not you can be proven guilty.
And that has what to do with MLK and civil rights? Is the connection that they are all black people? Are you suggesting that black people have been acting so badly in the media that somehow they have lost civil rights? I'm honestly confused. It's not simply "I can't stand people who claim to represent civil rights these days," is it? Because I really can't stand most activists of any stripe, from civil rights to low taxes to free software to critical mass bikers.
It seems to take a particularly irritating personality to care about something so much that you want to change society. So lets not act as if civil rights activists today are particularly annoying.
And how are programs like affirmative action following in that spirit? They tell you that, for example, if you have slanted eyes then you immediately deserve lower preference than anybody, but if you have black skin then you automatically get to be first in line.
Affirmative action is ideally correcting a recurring problem in society, not simply giving a boost to all minorities. So I think the basis for people saying Asians shouldn't be covered by affirmative action would say "They're doing fine as is." For black people, on the other hand, the argument would be there's a cycle of not having opportunities from generation to generation.
I'm not claiming to know anything about whether or not black people are disadvantaged while asians have enough advantages, I'm explicitly steering clear of that, I'm just pointing out the argument is more complex than "your skin is not white so you should get first choice of jobs and education," and consequently, it's not as hypocritical as you're making it out to be.