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."
End of a Dream (Score:5, Funny)
MLK's legacy capitalizing on MLK's legacy.
Go for it kids!
Re: (Score:2)
MLK's legacy capitalizing on MLK's legacy.
Go for it kids!
Maybe they should just sell the whole kit and caboodle to Disney and watch it really get run into the ground.
Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Funny)
"Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?"
Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.
Obviously Pluto is the field dog. Goofy is the house dog.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That's how I understood it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it should be easy to determine who should be thrown in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't throw them in jail, but I'm sure they'll fine the ass off that no-good pirating nonprofit :-(
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, he forgot to read out the EULA before he started his speech.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Funny)
But without the benefit of copyright, Dr. King will have no motive to continue giving exemplary speeches in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned (ianal), the "I have a dream" speech was a historical, public, and defining of an important part of our society. It can't be copyrighted. Any lowlife trying to capitalize on that should be thrown in jail.
And in the worst case, perhaps speeches are fungible [theonion.com]. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
"As far as I'm concerned (ianal), "
Dear Sir
We request that you cease and desist from the use if the iAnal trademark registered as part of Apple's marital aids portfolio. We require that you immediately remove the offending post and never use the term again.
Yours etc.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
MLK's legacy has largely been decimated by those who claim to support him the most.
One of his most famous sayings was that he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
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 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.
What a joke the civil rights movement has become.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
In that case, they've been judged a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 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.
What a joke the civil rights movement has become.
Nice spin. Great the way you worked your agenda in there, in the guise of "well if this is true, then the rest of what I have to say must be true to." Considering that King was reviled by a large hunk of America, and still is (see "Robert E. Lee Day), I guess the current civil rights leaders must be doing a decent job. From where I'm standing, Zimmerman was about a crazy vigilante who got off because his victim was black and the trial was in Florida. Quite different from your perspective.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that King was reviled by a large hunk of America, and still is (see "Robert E. Lee Day)
Great. Now I have an image of Dr. King astride a warhorse, leading his sword at full gallop, and charging Confederate positions alongside Sherman in Atlanta.
What the hell, dude?
Let's get a couple of things straight here...
Point The First: Historical celebrations of events long passed does not automatically denote an adherence to the babblings of some backwoods sheet-donning inbred.
Point The Second: while racism is certainly not dead yet, I can tell you for damned certain that it's currently suffering from a fatal case of terminal neglect. Clue: *ACTUAL* racism has faded so badly that certain ideologues have to invent new meanings of the word (e.g. "I disagree with Obama" == "racist" in some quarters), just to keep the outrage flowing and (more importantly) the campaign coffers full.
Point The Third: Jesse Jackson and his ilk have been waving Dr. King's bloody shirt for decades now, shaking down individuals and corporations alike for agreement, compliance, and (again, more importantly) money. They have contributed absolutely nothing towards the elimination of racial hatred, and I daresay they have incited more than a little.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison and jail ethnic population statistics answer that question unceremoniously. You have a huge advantage and the benefit of the doubt in the legal system just by being white. I'll also mention for like billionth time: ZIMMERMAN ISNT OR WILL BE WHITE... fuck cnn.
Re: (Score:3)
he was the one doing the assaulting
The jury disagreed. And much of the evidence did as well.
Re: (Score:3)
1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting.
Following someone isn't assault. It's also not evidence that, in an ensuing confrontation, the follower was necessarily the instigator of violence. You can follow someone and then they assault you.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Informative)
George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there.
What kind of crack are you smoking? 1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting....
Following ! = assaulting.
He was on the phone with 911 when he was asked where the suspicious person (person pacing in front of a house). George got out to look. The 911 operator (not a cop) told him he didn't have to look for him, and George said "Ok" and stopped looking. He went across the residential block to get an address, turned back and started to go back to his truck. At that point 911 closed the call.
Trayvon was on the phone too, to his friend Dee-Dee. She stated he made it all the way back to the back yard of the house he was staying at. He then decided to *GO BACK* and confront George, Dee-Dee lost contact when she said she heard a fight break out. We have a timestamp when the call ended.
From when George told the 911 operator he lost sight of Trayvon, to the point when the fight broke out, was 4 minutes. The house Trayvon was staying at was less than 100 yards away. Four minutes was more than enough time to get back home. It is enough time to head home, then decide to head back... And based on Trayvon's social media, he was one to pick a fight with people. This is based on evidence.
We also know that Trayvon's mother sent Trayvon to live with his father because she couldn't control him.
We also know that George didn't land a single punch, or attack until he was able to get his gun out. We also know Trayvon did hit George many times. I don't think you can assault somebody's fist with your face....
Everything points to Trayvon was upset that some guy was watching him and wanted to teach that guy a lesson... And he picked a fight with a person who could defend himself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
He didn't shoot from his car. Are you on drugs or something?
Re:End of a Dream (Score:4, Informative)
There was no car involved, the younger man was shot while on top of the older man, apparently attempting to release his brains from his skull with the assistance of the concrete below. Read the trial transcripts.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that is genuinely the problem with this trial. Those who believe Zimmerman was guilty tend to believe one or all of the following:
Zimmerman simply followed and then shot Trayvon.
Trayvon was being followed, which gave him the right to assault Zimmerman.
Zimmerman "created a situation" which gave Trayvon the right to assault him.
Being straddled on your back and having your head banged on concrete while that same person is trying to smother you to death doesn't permit you to use lethal force to defend y
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, local, state and federal agencies were found guilty of conspiring to assassinate him. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/16784-how-the-government-killed-martin-luther-king-jr [readersupportednews.org]
People tend to forget that MLK said more than "I have a dream."
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1700's and 1800's we had a concept called fighting words. If somebody used "fighting words" (words that provoked a fight) then that person was responsible for whatever happened afterwards.
That concept sort of fell apart when it became questionable what constituted fighting words, and what constituted provocation. So, the new standard became whoever made the first physical assault was then responsible. Both the physical evidence and witness testimony showed that it was indeed Trayvon who not only initiated physical contact, but also caused physical injuries and was seen straddling Zimmerman. That is why Zimmerman was found not guilty, and it is also why they chose not to prosecute him in the beginning. It was only after public pressure, and public pressure alone, not evidence or anything else, which is why this went to trial. Also contrary to popular opinion, "stand your ground" was never used as a defense in this case.
The detectives themselves who investigated the case didn't even want to prosecute it, by the way, because they believed Zimmerman to be innocent. One of the things that convince me personally that Zimmerman is telling the truth is that one of the detectives told Zimmerman that they had the incident on camera, to which Zimmerman replied "thank god" without even thinking about it.
Besides, if we stuck to "being followed" as a justification for turning around and pummeling somebody's head against concrete, I'd sure hate to be a mall cop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sure, but that does not mean it was not predictable.
2. Fine grocery store. The point is simply that one can now create a situation where by you can kill your victim and come out with a solid defense. You can now harass and bother someone until they attack you if you want to legally kill them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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 betw
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Informative)
He followed and provoked someone then killed him.
You skipped a few steps there.
- Zimmerman followed Trayvon, then turned around and went back to his truck. 911 tapes and witness testimony confirmed this (prosecution witness no less.)
- He got out of his truck to check the address so that he could tell the police and so they could find him. Again, confirmed by 911 tapes.
- Trayvon, who was 3 minutes away from being home, decides to turn around and go after "that cracker" (referring to Zimmerman) instead of continuing home.
- While Zimmerman is checking the address, Trayvon assaults Zimmerman, tells him he's going to die tonight. A witness sees Trayvon straddling Zimmerman on the ground and assaulting him. Zimmerman has wounds on both the front and back of his head, including a broken nose and lacerations. Trayvon has no notable injuries.
You can clearly see, which prosecution witnesses even testified to, that Zimmerman not only stopped following him, but Trayvon, who could have returned home, instead came after Zimmerman and then assaulted him.
The problem is that people like you who believe Zimmerman was guilty think it was just a simple matter of "Zimmerman followed and then killed Trayvon" when that statement isn't even remotely accurate due to how much context it discards.
Let's suppose that "creating the situation" gives the other party permission to assault you (it doesn't,) that "situation" was over the minute Zimmerman returned to his truck to wait for the police. The "situation" in which Trayvon was killed was started when Trayvon decided to return to assault Zimmerman.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. Stop right there. Nothing more needs to be said. There is no need for "but" . Assaulting someone for following you makes you a criminal. Period. If you are frightened, call 911. Trayvon did have a cell phone. He was using it during the event. It was found in the vicinity of the body. Or, you know, he could have just finished walking home. He was only a few doors away.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Informative)
The drug concoction was a drug called "Lean", "Purple Lean", "Sizzurp", or "Purple Drank". Trayvon's recipe called for Arizona Ice Tea brand Watermelon Fruit-punch cocktail, Cough Syrup (preferably with codeine) and skittles. It's one of the reasons why cough syrup is sold behind the counter.
Feel free to look up "Trayvon Lean facebook" and see posts by Trayvon on making the stuff... Also look up the LA times article "Lil Wayne hospitalized; sizzurp's powerful high, deadly side effects"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as “Lean,” also known in southern hip-hop culture as “Sizzurp” and “Purple Drank.” Lean consists of three basic ingredients — codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044402/posts [freerepublic.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Hahahah, someone citing a post on freerepublic. Congratulations, you just obliterated any and all credibility you may have ever had.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
And funny...you don't see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson raising a ruckus over the recent killing of a white man from Australia, by some black kids...shooting him in the back with no interaction at all. One of the black kids, has posts out that are extremely racist.
But then again..that won't put money in Al or Jesse's pocket.
The civil rights "movement" has become the civil rights "industry" where there is money to be made by black "leaders" race baiting blacks against whites.
Hell, if MLK's dream came true...they'd be out of a fucking job.
Re:End of a Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to eliminate racism is not by perpetuating it.
Re: (Score:3)
I can say the same thing using a lot more words if you like. It doesn't change anything.
Re: (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 st
Does the Jackson family know about this? (Score:3)
I'm certain Michael Jackson's surviving relatives could teach them some real lessons about infighting and degrading the overall value of the property with unseemly squabbles.
i had a dream...
Parasitic leeches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. King was certainly a very positive agent of change in the world. Too bad his children now exemplify everything that is wrong with it.
Re:Parasitic leeches. (Score:5, Informative)
They exemplify EVERYTHING that's wrong with it? I can think of far, far more examples of things that they aren't exemplifying that's wrong with the world.
This is a family disagreement that has spilled over to an organization tied to the family. Yes it's ugly. Yes MLK probably would have non-violently spanked all his kids over it. But it's hardly exemplify what's wrong with the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the basis for almost everything wrong with the world, when it comes to mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. King was certainly a very positive agent of change in the world. Too bad his children now exemplify everything that is wrong with it.
Yes. Irony overload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So that somehow changes his message? Or are you saying people never do anything wrong if they are christian?
1+1=2 would be wrong under your definition because someone who taught it is a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
So?
What do you mean pretended? Sounds like No True Scotsman to me.
I don't think... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this was part of King's dream.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this was part of King's dream.
Certainly is giving some lawyers verrrry interesting dreams - now matter how badly this rolls for the family and perception of them fighting over ownership of the legacy, the lawyers will still collect their due.
It's the American dream.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this was part of King's dream.
Though, if you don't want to be judged by the color of your skin, being filthy stinking rich is a better tactic than most... (also a pretty good way to avoid being judged by the content of your character; but hey!)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, and people tell me that the "I have a dream" speech expresses complex ideals not easily simplified. But to investigate further would be to needless intrude on well established intellectual property rights, and therefore I will have to rely on half remembered paraphrases and misquotations.
I have a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.
Tell me about the dream!
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."
Never mind it was a public performance, with the most memorable part of the speech being ad-libbed by Dr. King.
He must be doing about Warp 6 in his grave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, he is the one who got a copyright on it.
Yes, but he did so to prevent dickheads from using his words for their own personal profit.
Natch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not in 1963, it wasn't.
Re:I have a dream (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright before 1976 did NOT automatically get granted when the ideas hit a fixed form.
Re:I have a dream (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't quite ad-libbed. Dr. King had already given a good portion of the "I have a dream" speech at a smaller rally in Detroit, but had cut that part from the speech that he was to give in Washington, as he didn't want to look like he was repeating himself. The story goes that midway through his speech at the March on Washington, gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted, "Tell 'em about the dream, Martin!" as you allude to in your post. At which point Dr. King uttered the famous line, "I still have a dream." The members of the crowd that had been at the Detroit rally began cheering, because they knew what was coming.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, the summary had me confused.
Since King’s speech was popular it should not have IP protection. Ergo other popular things, like Star Wars and the NFL games should not have IP protection.
I think we can – are should - argue what level (if any) if historical events should have IP. I think we should be arguing the length of IP restrictions. (50 years seems enough.). But I don’t think we should be arguing that popular things should have a lower level.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-violence, Except... (Score:2)
... for stuff we can make money on, then expect to see jackbooted thugs raiding your offices if you continue to use our grandfather's public speech in public discourse without paying us.
Re: (Score:2)
... for stuff we can make money on, then expect to see jackbooted thugs raiding your offices if you continue to use our grandfather's public speech in public discourse without paying us.
Interesting collateral damage is that the very people who should hear the speech will not be able to afford to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a nightmare... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that my children will undo everything positive about my life.
Re: (Score:2)
...that my children will undo everything positive about my life.
Pass them my card, ackthpt of Dewey, Skrewum & Howe LLP
Re: (Score:2)
do his children get off on beating the shit out of women like daddy did?
useless parasites (Score:3)
These useless parasites - King's sons - are stealing our culture. They are a disgrace to Dr King's memory.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Enough is enough. All of King's speeches, images, and works should be taken from this greedy family and placed in the public domain. They belong to everyone and not just whoever can pay for them.
Unintended effects (Score:2)
I wonder if the release of Dr. King's works to the world and substantial realization of social justice in America will coincide. Maybe the continued familial infighting will prolong both of those events.
Re: (Score:2)
How could it not?
Two things: (Score:2)
One, Dr King is most probably spinning in his grave. I can't imagine a world where Dr. King wanted access limited to his "I have a dream" speech.
Two, if the family wants his name back, they can have it. "Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard" doesn't fit on the stationary anyway.
MLK Jr.'s sons should be ashamed. (Score:2)
Just disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that King would want his speech (of historical importance) locked up behind copyright?
King sued [leagle.com] for copyright infringement of the speech in 1963. That's what got the whole copyright ball rolling.
So yeah, this is exactly what he wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
That was against a record company trying to sell it for profit, almost the opposite of the current situation.
Oh for crying out loud ... (Score:2)
Does IP law really mean that if I invent something my greedy bastard children get to lay claim on it for decades???
Can you will it to a charity?
This just sounds like the family cash cow as everybody tries to make bank on what daddy did.
posthumous copyright (Score:2)
This kind of thing is a great example of why long posthumous copyrights need to be abolished. Along with a certan quantity of other copyright schemes. This in no way encourages the creation of new works, nor innovation except in the field of fivolous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Copywritten? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That has not always been true.
Re: (Score:2)
That was part of the 1978 copyright law. This speech predates that.
one is left to wonder... (Score:2)
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.
One is left to wonder etc. when they can be applied beyond the lifetime of the creator of the IP, famous or not
My lawyer friends "Had a Dream" (Score:5, Funny)
I have a dream that one day my children will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these images and speeches to be copyrighted, and that it should be self-evident: that all of my children are entitled to residual revenue in perpetuity, as authorized under section 6 of the copyright act of 1976"
Free speech? (Score:2)
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.
Sorry, Subby, but no, "free speech" doesn't mean you can freely appropriate someone's work just because they're a "public figure". See, the "free" part is about their freedom from persecution, not your cost of royalties when you put their speech on t-shirts.
Family fighting family over money. (Score:2)
I might actually give a shit about his kids if it wasn't for the fact that they're just wrangling amongst themselves over money.
This is why IP/Copyright/etc/etc should be life of the creator +20 years or a flat 20 years in the case of assets held by a corporation.
It has now been over FIFTY YEARS since the man gave his famous speech. And he's been dead for 45 of them. I'd think that his children have reaped a decent return off something they didn't do for themselves.
Solution... (Score:2)
So THAT was his dream!?!? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...of many more years of royalites!
Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.
You've obviously missed some select cuts of history, where children or even distant relatives, have done like and frittered away their family fortunes, enriching lawyers only in the process.
I was just quoting a case in California Law to a colleague this morning, where no more than 25% of an estate may be left to charity if there are surviving relatives. One charity would be a school for the deaf. Damn the charities, the cousin said and usurped 75% of the estate and sold it off. Back in the early 1900's.
Re: (Score:3)
...of many more years of royalites!
Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.
Is there any population group where dickheaded infighting over who gets to inherit the family cash is a surprise? Even people too poor to have assets worth fighting over can use 'dividing the estate' as a proxy for all the childhood emnities over who mommy and daddy loved best, magnified by all the anxiety, rivalry, bitterness, and jealousy about who did, and didn't, achieve the life that they wanted for themselves, with nothing but a few trinkets of sentimental value. Once you put some cash on the table...
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any population group where dickheaded infighting ... is a surprise?
No.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right. (Score:3)
IP means "intellectual property," as you well know, which is a broad term for the only semi-related torts and laws governing the use and reproduction of ideas: copyright, patents, trademarks & trade dress, publicity, and trade secrets. Copyright is one of the three main pillars of IP law.
If you want to bitch about how useless "intellectual property" is as a term when it covers such disparate and unrelated laws & torts, then you're several centuries too late. All of property law has long been desc
Re: (Score:3)
It's unique in that it's a milestone political speech. Having it in the public domain greatly enhances our ability, years later, to have a political conversation referencing it.