[nylug-talk] silly DMCA tricks

[joe]

At 03:12 PM 5/2/2003 -0400, Mordy wrote:

that I can't give the same
award-winning speech you gave is hard to cover with a "fundamental right."

Actually, there is such a legal right under the law. The most high profile 
case in recent memory was the dispute between a major news org (maybe CBS? 
I think it was but I'm not certain) and the estate of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Under inheritance law, his estate, including copyrights, belongs to his 
heirs. That was not in dispute.

But the news org was selling copies of the complete newsreel they'd made of 
his entire "I Have Dream."  The amounts of money involved are substantial 
because that speech is regarded by many people around the world as perhaps 
the most important speech of the 20th Century. Sales generate huge sums.

The estate sued, saying those sales violated their copyright. The defense 
said, it was a public event and we recorded it as news. We have a First 
Amendment Right to do that and we own the copyright to our film. The estate 
said, in effect, they are not selling news; they are selling a speech to 
which we own the copyright; they said that a blank film or one without the 
sound track was worthless and that the copyrighted speech was what made it 
so valuable. The lawsuit framed a dispute between two basic constitutional 
claims.

It was widely known that the courts were as happy to see this one coming 
down the judicial track as if they had been tied to the rails. Which they 
were.

There were early rulings that satisfied no one. But eventually, I think 
wiser heads prevailed all around. As I recall, past damage claims were 
settled with a substantial single payment and future payments were promised 
to the foundation controlled by his estate. The estate's copyright was 
acknowledged by the settlement. The point was made that there are 
circumstances under which a speech is protected by copyright.

Based on the web site of Stanford U, the repository of MLK's work, that now 
stands.

see: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/copyright.htm

Property rights are probably at the very top of this hierarchy . . . 
Copyright is a right that would
fall near the very bottom of such an ordering.

I think, that while we apparently disagree on a number of other points, 
that statement neatly frames the underlying issue to this whole discussion. 
It is the man behind the curtain. It is the Third Man. It is Godot.  It is 
what we are really talking about here.

You respect property rights and we agree on that. But you do not agree that 
what copyright protects is property as you use the word. If I have 
misconstrued you, I sincerely apologize and I'd appreciate your comments to 
correct me.

In contrast to that position, I believe that my work, like all intellectual 
and creative work, is property of value equal in its nature to any 
homestead or auto title. It is the result of my labor. My costs of 
production include everything from years of preparation and study to the 
cost of my tools (computer, phone), etc.

I think that if we can acknowledge that we disagree on that point, we have 
a start at addressing the question of what protection copyright deserves. 
If it is not property of that higher class, then it could be argued it does 
not deserve the same level of protection. If it is, it does.

So can we focus on that, maybe as a sidebar to the main thread?  I've 
changed the subject header in anticipation of that.