
Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream” - chimeracoder
http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59684564818/why-youve-never-read-i-have-a-dream
======
slg
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](http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html))
are really taught in school?

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

~~~
danielweber
Schools have successfully used copyrighted books all the time in literature
classes without problems. You can't run it off yourself on the mimeograph
machine but just go buy 30 copies and leave them in the classroom.

~~~
chimeracoder
Of course they can. That's not the issue. The issue is that textbook
publishers cannot (or will not) include the speech in their books, because
then they would have to pay royalties (and indirectly pass along those costs
to the schools).

Furthermore, use of the video is much more heavily controlled by the King
estate.

~~~
danielweber
Schoolbooks are full of stuff that is copyrighted. The photos explicitly are.

We still have Norton's Antologies, right? Many of those are 100% filled with
copyrighted works they need to pay royalties on. And they do. And everything
works out just fine.

------
ignostic
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:

[http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/...](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1841228,00.html)

If you have read even half of these, maybe then I'll buy the copyright
argument.

~~~
chimeracoder
> 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.

~~~
kamjam
Also, 15 years ago, most people had no idea who Google were, internet adoption
was much lower, there was a vast majority of people who didn't even own a
computer.

Your points are still very valid, but something as significant as this should
never have been copyright-able from day one.

 _Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright
law on the planet. ~ Mark Twain_

------
yread
You can read it here [http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

~~~
clicks
And watch it here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs)

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.

~~~
hudibras
And keep in mind that MLK was 34 years old when he gave that speech. I'm
trying hard not to think about what I was doing at that age...

~~~
speedyrev
Also keep in mind that the last portion starting with "I have a dream..." and
following was all improvised. The original draft didn't include those words.

------
bpatrianakos
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.

~~~
slacka
> 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.

[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215archi...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215archives#f3DBKAwelujA9tNFocKQyg)

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/documentaries-
old...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/documentaries-old-footage-
and-copyright/)

~~~
huherto
> grandchildren retaining copyright control over his idea

You are being conservative. Let's try to visualize a hypothetical example...

Age 25 children are born.

Age 40 write work of art.

Age 50 grand children are born.

Age 75 great grand children are born.

Age 80 dies.

100 years after being born. Great great grand children are born.

125 years after being born. Great great great grand children are born.

150 years after being born. Great great great great grand children are born.
Copyright runs out.

------
andrewljohnson
Heard it during MLK Day on NPR, was absolutely floored.

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/](http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/)

~~~
scassidy
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.

~~~
VonGuard
The FBI was doing a whole lot more than trying to link him to the communists.
It was standard operation to infiltrate all civil rights groups. I don;t know
specifically what they did to King's org, but the Black Panthers were fucked
by the FBI. Malcom X's body guard, for example, was an undercover FBI agent.
Most of the civil rights groups had undercover FBI inside them, and in high
ranking positions.

Yet another example of our government hating our freedoms.... Oh wait, I
thought those were the terrorists....

~~~
sliverstorm
Can infiltrating the Black Panthers really be considered "anti-freedoms"? What
freedoms, exactly? The freedom to be violent?

~~~
Zimahl
Agreed, I thought the same way. To quote the Beatles:

 _We all want to change the world / But when you talk about destruction /Don't
you know that you can count me out_

 _But when you want money / For people with minds that hate / All I can tell
is brother you have to wait_

~~~
king_jester
Easy for John Lennon to say as a misogynist white man who had all the money
and privilege in the world.

~~~
Zimahl
I don't know about misogynist but he was white and was rich from his music.
Lennon was a peace-loving hippie. The lyrics from 'Revolution' aren't
necessarily talking about the Black Panthers, I always felt they were talking
to the times and society in general, including government.

Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or
do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and
privilege in the world?

~~~
king_jester
John Lennon can't opt out the violence society perpetuates that seeks to
uphold whiteness just by writing a song about how he's not into violence. He
also can't opt out of the aspects of capitalism that perpetuate racism. That
is what I mean about how it is easy for him to write or lyrics like that, he
will not feel the full brunt of society's affects because 1) he is a man, 2)
because he is white, and 3) because he had tremendous wealth.

> Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion
> or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money
> and privilege in the world?

I don't know why you bring up Jay-Z, I never said that any musician can't have
an opinion. But it is easy to be about non-violence when you are not yourself
the primary target of systemic, state sponsored violence.

~~~
darkarmani
> hat is what I mean about how it is easy for him to write or lyrics like
> that, he will not feel the full brunt of society's affects

Who exactly feels the full brunt of society's effects? This is starting to
feel like a no true scotsman argument. I'm betting you can disqualify almost
anyone from feeling the _full_ effects.

------
eplanit
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.

([http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/08/maya-
angelou-u...](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/08/maya-angelou-
upset-over-mlk-memorial-inscription/))

~~~
JPKab
Can someone please explain this? Do his children depend on the royalties for
income?

~~~
antc
No. Profits made from royalties go primarily into funding The King Center.
[http://www.thekingcenter.org/](http://www.thekingcenter.org/)

~~~
nostromo
And who works for the King Center? MLK's kids.

So yes, royalties go to the King Center, which at least in part, go to his
children, including MLK III.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_III)

~~~
res0nat0r
And this is bad...how? They are working to further MLK's goals.

~~~
angersock
I haven't seen anything that they've done of recent merit in the news lately.

------
unreal37
The counter argument, though, is "How many people have read Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address"?

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.

~~~
CoffeeDregs
>The counter argument, though, is "How many >people have read Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address"?

Your counter-argument was about as valid as saying "How many people have
needed freedom?"

In any case, your counter-argument seems unrelated to the OP's post... Whether
or not people would read or listen to the entire speech, the OP was arguing
that copyright laws are impeding the creation of new content, the consumption
of existing, important content and society's understanding of itself.

>I think this says more about our "sound-bite" culture than >how protective
the family is of the audio.

Ironically, your comment represents the 'sound-bite' culture quite
effectively.

~~~
unreal37
Why are you making this about me?

------
danso
"I Have A Dream" shows the heights of humanity, and its copyright status shows
the pettiness of humanity.

------
alexjeffrey
[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+have+a+dream&p...](http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+have+a+dream&page=&utm_source=opensearch)

thank god for those who don't respect overzealous copyright holders.

~~~
rdl
Indeed, YouTube was my first answer to this.

We need more Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X for the issues of today (regulatory
capture and the shredded constitution, political campaign finance,
income/opportunity inequality being the main meta-issues), I think, rather
than more MLK.

~~~
iends
You're saying we need more people who physically harm others?

~~~
rdl
Without the threat of someone more extreme, I don't believe someone like MLK
can be terribly effective. I also don't think someone like MLK can work in a
repressive regime which isn't generally subject to public will, or when trying
to enforce human rights which are constitutionally protected, strongly wanted
by a small affected population, but meaningless to the greater population.

I can't see 50-80 year old non-technical voters caring about key escrow or
mandatory data retention, even though it's an infringement of
1A/2A/4A/5A/6A/14A/+.

(It's not violence per se, it's extremism. RMS is a copyright extremist, and
that makes things easier for people like Lessig I think. Gilmore is a fly-
without-papers extremist, etc.)

~~~
dfc
_Crypto as a 2nd Ammendment issue_

That's why I like you rdl; munitions are munitions.

~~~
rdl
"Bombes not bombs!" (or Bombs not Bombes, I guess). RKB Bombes? Ban the Bombe?

([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe))

------
alayne
King himself sued people over the copyright. We need to be careful not to
revise history and turn people who did great things into saints.

~~~
chimeracoder
> We need to be careful not to revise history and turn people who did great
> things into saints.

That's true. I should have cut the last paragraph before posting, but now that
it's out there and people have read it, I think it's best to let it stand.

------
jared314
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.

[1]
[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_spee...](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_speech/)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_J...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc).

~~~
metric10
Given the technology of the era, how else where people supposed to gain access
to it? And so what if they made a profit doing it, so long as other companies
or individuals had the right to distribute it also. In the end more copies
would have been distributed and listened to.

And as for the "MLK-Hitler poster" argument, that would be fair use and
wouldn't be stopped by copyright.

~~~
jared314
> And as for the "MLK-Hitler poster" argument, that would be fair use

Selling MLK-Hitler posters would not count as fair use. That was the point I
was making.

~~~
hearty777
Are you serious? I'm fairly sure you're protected by the first amendment for
selling MLK-Hitler posters. In fact, you can Google for those items now.
Here's one:

[http://www.redbubble.com/people/artofmewa/works/8484381-the-...](http://www.redbubble.com/people/artofmewa/works/8484381-the-
thin-line-of-choices-martin-luther-king-and-hitler?p=t-shirt)

~~~
jared314
Their existence only proves they haven't been sued yet. But, you have a good
point. Perhaps I am mixing Trademark, and Right of Publicity, with Copyright.
All of them apply in this case, and have been used in the past to prevent the
unauthorized use of MLK's image and works.

~~~
fancyketchup
As a public figure, MLK ('s estate) has greatly reduced right of publicity, so
I'm not sure how you think that would come into this. You are allowed to
criticize celebrities. Even in California, MLK's personality rights wouldn't
survive his death anyway.

As for Trademark... what is the trademark here, and how would anyone be
confused by an MLK-Hitler poster? I don't think anyone is going to buy an MLK-
Hitler poster thinking that they are getting MLK-brand doughnuts (or even MLK-
Hitler brand doughnuts).

------
sczkid
Here's a good summary of the copyright issue:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2013/08/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2013/08/27/i-have-a-dream-speech-still-private-property/)

~~~
Pxtl
Interestingly it mentions that _King himself_ was involved in suing people for
selling videos of his speech, showing that the final lines of the blog article
are wrong - he actually did enjoy the protections that copyright law offered
him.

~~~
scrabble
Did he also sue people who weren't profiting from his speech?

I think those are very different things.

------
mintplant
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.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Teachers don't actually care about such restrictions.

No, but textbook publishers do. The current state of affairs means that very
few textbooks include the speech, because textbooks are sold commercially.

Agreed, teachers are notorious for ignoring copyright (I've seen them
photograph entire books for us in teaching), but that's a separate matter.
IMHO, the solution to broken uses of copyright isn't to say, "let's just
ignore it", even if that does have a desirable effect.

~~~
publicfig
I know that McDougal includes it in their teachings. Here's the lesson plan
that I learned off of and that is still taught now:
[http://www.classzone.com/books/language_of_lit_gr07/page_bui...](http://www.classzone.com/books/language_of_lit_gr07/page_build.cfm?content=sl_dream_u2&u=2)

------
LukeShu
> ... the two other people who wrote it (and likely wrote most of it).

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.

~~~
chimeracoder
All the more reason for people to watch the video (which is much more heavily
controlled by the King estate) than to rely on the printed text!

~~~
LukeShu
Most text copies you find are transcripts of what he actually said, not the
script he was reading. It's easy to tell the difference, because the phrase "I
have a dream" isn't in the script he was reading!

------
Shivetya
the part that disgusts me is that the estate was paid seven hundred thousand
dollars to use the words on the monument erected in his honor. I posted this
the other day from an article in the Washington Times,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6290716](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6290716)
which leads to [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-you-wont-see-
or-h...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-you-wont-see-or-hear-the-
i-have-a-dream-
speech/2013/08/27/09d2a07a-0e66-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html)

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
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.

------
azernik
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.)

------
fnbaptiste
I read the entirety in college. It was in a textbook I used to own. That in
his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which is also very much worth reading
(found here:
[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
)

~~~
gknoy
I remember reading that about a year ago though Letters of Note (which is
often excellent), and being absolutely _blown away_ by how eloquent King was.
It was an amazing letter.

------
mrt0mat0
National Archives... Seemed pretty freely available to me

[http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

------
Macsenour
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.

~~~
nanidin
Unless copyright law has changed since then, the circle c doesn't matter. The
way copyright works in the US, the rights to any creative work are
automatically reserved for the author.

~~~
mturmon
Yes, this aspect of copyright law has changed since the Sixties. The circled-C
symbol (or the equivalent words) were required before 1989:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Cop...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Copyright_notices)

------
jaynos
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.

[1] [http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jan/13/dr-martin-luther-
king-...](http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jan/13/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-
public-imagination/)

------
tomphoolery
I love how you equate "access" with "reading". Especially given the highly
rhetoric tone of the speech, reading it to me would just be doing the whole
thing a disservice. A good chunk of what makes that speech successful is his
awesome use of rhetoric and repitition to get his point across. It's a really
dumbass comparison but IMO Chris Rock does the same thing, he'll repeat a
concept over and over to the audience in between doing jokes about the
concept. I think these are two sides to the same coin, rhetoric goes a LONG
way when convincing others that your words are truth in public.

We studied this speech in my high school, as well as speeches by FDR and John
F. Kennedy (sidenote: why are all great public speakers referred to by the
initials that make up their name? MLK, FDR, JFK, etc.). We studied the speech
to learn more about rhetoric and how an orator can twist common words into
powerful devices for convincing you to believe in their ideas.

Oh and by the way? __we read it too __. This was to emphasize how much more
powerful the speech is when SPOKEN rather than read. It 's really not that fun
to read, the sentences are so repetitive, short and simple that it's hard to
believe an educated man wrote them, but that is of course the purpose of such
speeches...you speak them in such a way that the simple becomes complex and
weak words become powerful.

------
Medea
We actually read the full speech in school and watched the youtube video. We
got it as a copy from a textbook called "Speeches that changed the world" by
Simon Sebag Montefiore.

You can get the ebook from the google play store. From the free sample it
seems like they got permission to reproduce copyrigth material from The Estate
of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

[https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=jPArcMn728kC](https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=jPArcMn728kC)

------
snicklepuff
I've seen and read the entire speech dozens of times: In school, I distinctly
remember being given the entire speech transcription and talking about it as a
class on more than one occasion. In elementary school, we would have an actor
come on our "morning announcements" and re-enact the speech each year. One
teacher showed it to us on YouTube in it's entirety.

Is my experience really that unusual?

~~~
wehadfun
Yes. This is unusual. I went to 4 elementary schools. My wife is a elementary
school teacher and has taught at around 5 of them and none did this.

I am curious how old you are if you saw a Youtube video in your class in
elementary school.

~~~
snicklepuff
I was jumping around chronologically, the video was shown by a teacher I had
in high school. That wasn't clear, sorry.

------
MarcScott
There was a move earlier in the year on "Internet Freedom Day' for everyone to
share the video of the speech, anywhere they could, in defiance of the
copyright. Not sure what traction there was.
[http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/its-internet-freedom-day-
ti...](http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/its-internet-freedom-day-ti.html)

------
ghshephard
150 used, starting at $0.65 - I don't really think this material is that
difficult to acquire.

[http://www.amazon.com/Have-Dream-Writings-Speeches-
Anniversa...](http://www.amazon.com/Have-Dream-Writings-Speeches-
Anniversary/dp/0062505521)

""I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World," by Martin
Luther King, Jr., is a fine collection of texts by this important figure. The
book has been edited by James M. Washington. Coming in at less than 300 pages,
this is a concise but meaty book. Washington includes King's most important
texts: the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"; the "I Have a Dream" speech; his
Nobel Prize acceptance speech; "My Trip to the Land of Gandhi"; "A Time to
Break Silence," his 1967 speech criticizing the United States war in Vietnam,
and more. These writings and speeches cover King's great themes: nonviolent
resistance, the African-American civil rights movement, etc."

------
jsta
My retort:

[http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html](http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html)

[http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/i-have-a-dream-
speech...](http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/i-have-a-dream-speech-full-
text-martin-luther-king-jrs-words-on-aug-28-1963)

------
rbellio
I remember watching it on some encyclopedia product that came loaded on my HP
back sometime around '95\. They also had presidential speeches and the
Hindenburg crash among other events. I thought I was the coolest kid ever to
have access to such historical information at my home; that so much data could
be stored on a simple CD.

------
anigbrowl
This is a much, much better article on the same subject:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-you-wont-see-
or-h...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-you-wont-see-or-hear-the-
i-have-a-dream-
speech/2013/08/27/09d2a07a-0e66-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html)

------
lifeisstillgood
It's interesting the version from the US National Archives
([http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)) has (top
of page 5) different wording to the speech (IIRC)

    
    
      My own little children ... shall be judged not by the color of their skin 
    

Vs

    
    
      My four small children ... shall not be judged by ...
    
    

"Shall be judged not" is the speech and just the memory with its crackling
soundtrack gets me. It's odd how even with a prepared speech he still belted
out a better version on the day.

Edit: oh yes - anyone wanting to improve their accent before the next YC
interviews could do a lot lot worse than have MLK playing through their
headphones each day. Learn from the very best.

------
pvaldes
I'm feeling a little evil now...

I have a dream. I dreamed with some bad guys writting with a felt-tip the
complete speech in several walls in your cities, in a corner next of your
schools. Ten point size is okay much more should be excessive.

Then the good people; lawyers and copyright holders came to delete the illegal
speechs from the walls, restoring the law and the order.

This could be and extremely interesting social experiment, maybe even a piece
of performance art.

If there is a "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", a "Mother's Day, a "World Sparrow
day" and a day to play with rubber bats, candies and pumpkins; why not a
"Everybody writes a famous speech day that changes our country for good it the
corner of his/her street, in a paper airplane or in a ballon"?

Could make a really beautiful local holiday...

------
joshvm
Yet Fox News published it not two days ago:

[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/transcript-martin-
luthe...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/transcript-martin-luther-king-
jr-have-dream-speech/)

~~~
chimeracoder
Chances are they had to pay for it, since that probably did not fall under
"fair use" (they are a commercial entity, using the speech as part of their
commercial purposes).

Unfortunately, the same can be said about textbook publishers, and most of
them _don 't_ pay for it.

Worse, the video is much more heavily controlled by the King estate than the
printed text.

------
lnanek2
This was done intentionally by MLK with the proceeds used for good works last
time I looked into it. So, amusingly, articles like this are kind of written
out of ignorance as to the speech itself.

~~~
chimeracoder
> This was done intentionally by MLK with the proceeds used for good works
> last time I looked into it.

Irrespective of this, it reduces the number of textbooks that can publish the
text of the speech to (almost) zero, since most publishers can't afford it.

This is a value judgement and therefore subjective, but I don't believe it's
worth it.

------
philliescurt
Second result on google: [http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

------
flatline
I don't know about you all, but public school did an abysmal job of teaching
me any US history post-WWII. It's like nothing has happened in this country
since the women's suffrage movement, with WWII a hasty footnote. Honestly, I
think the politics were too hot to handle through the 1980s, when cultural
divides arout Vietnam were very fresh, and those from King's time still not
too distant. What is being taught in high school nowadays?

~~~
bzbarsky
I actually think this has more to do with the textbook authors not thinking of
those time periods as "history" but as "current events" somehow and hence not
feeling like a "history" book needs to include them. If you were in school
about 15-20 years ago, and the textbooks were about 15 years old (pretty
common), and the authors were in their 40s or 50s when writing them, then
events of 60-65 years ago, so the late 40s and early 50s, would have
corresponded to their teenage years...

Once you get into the 70s or 80s, it's not just the textbook authors who think
that way but also most of the teachers.

------
bborud
Let's not beat about the bush: the King Estate is a bunch of dumbasses and if
they want Dr Martin Luther King to be forgotten, they are doing a great job.

------
mpchlets
I watched this speech near every MLK day in the US while I was growing up, I
remember sitting there not understanding it as I was in grammar school.

We watched it on a large TV set that they rolled in on a cart. Granted I was
in a 99% white school at the time, but the school was not for the rich -
however they bought the necessary footage (I assume now, no idea).

I distinctly remember Dr. King's voice, I will not forget it.

------
mehulkar
In 9th grade I memorized and delivered the _I Have a Dream_ speech for my
English Honors program. I memorized it by reading it over and over again and I
also found an audio recording that I burned onto a CD and listened to 10 times
every night. It took me 16 minutes to deliver the whole speech (in costume). I
have no idea where I found the audio recording now, although NPR sounds right.

~~~
bennesvig
I did the exact same thing. The teacher offered it as a way to move up a whole
letter grade.

Our textbook had the whole thing printed, but I also found it online at the
time. Also downloaded the audio, though I'm not sure where from, since YouTube
wasn't around then.

------
ghaff
Apparently the Churchill estate is also very aggressive about royalties for
speeches and written works by Winston Churchill:
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/16193821734/church...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/16193821734/churchills-
heirs-seek-to-lose-future-charging-biographer-to-quote-his-words.shtml)

------
bennesvig
In high school I memorized the entire speech word for word to move my grade
from a B to an A. I've read it many, many, many times.

------
EGreg
Video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs)

Text: [http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

WUT!

------
jfranche
'I Have a Dream' \- Martin Luther King Jr. (audio only):
[http://fora.tv/1963/08/28/I_Have_a_Dream_Martin_Luther_King_...](http://fora.tv/1963/08/28/I_Have_a_Dream_Martin_Luther_King_Jr_audio_only)

------
pca
We've read the speech in school in Germany. Not from a textbook, but simply a
copied text, from the internet I presume. Was that illegal? I think every
class did. A relative who was a few years behind me also read it, with a
different teacher.

~~~
chimeracoder
Not sure of international copyright status, but probably it was legal.

The main casualty of the copyright status is that _textbooks_ cannot reproduce
it freely.

------
mistercow
Prediction: major copyright holder will buy the rights and then license them
liberally to get rid of this embarrassing poster child for copyright reform.

Actually scratch that, it's not a prediction. It would be smart, but it
probably won't happen.

------
ISL
His speech is featured at least once a year (and it was on a few nights ago)
on NPR on KUOW.

His Massey Lectures are also publicly available:
[http://www.prx.org/series/31037](http://www.prx.org/series/31037)

------
Raphael
Image not available pending copyright permission

[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/h?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID...](http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/h?ammem/mcc:@field\(DOCID+@lit\(mcc/029\)))

------
_mulder_
Those in the UK can listen to the speech, in full, for free on iPlayer. It's
not Kings original recording but it's respoken by notable civil rights
personalities. Just look for I Have A Dream on iPlayer, BBC Radio 4

------
andrelaszlo
[http://www.ibtimes.com/i-have-dream-speech-full-
transcript-v...](http://www.ibtimes.com/i-have-dream-speech-full-transcript-
video-read-dr-martin-luther-king-jrs-1963-speech-its-50th)

------
raymondh
The full text of the speech is in the National Archives:
[http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

------
runjake
I both read and heard the speech entirely in high school back in the 80s. We
spent something like 2-3 days on it and MLK's life during that period.

Is the author (and submitter, who's the same person) working off a false
premise?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Is the author (and submitter, who's the same person) working off a false
> premise?

A large portion of this was affected by a lawsuit from 1999, so keep that in
mind[0][1]

Also, students today are not prevented from _reading_ the speech; however, the
teacher must find a copy online and print it out and distribute it to the
students - the point is that most _textbooks_ will not be able to
publish/include it.

As for the video recording, yes that's been much more heavily restricted.

[0][http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/194_F3d_1211.htm](http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/194_F3d_1211.htm)
[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_J...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc).

------
Theory5
Throughout my college years, I had a poster with his entire speech on one of
my walls. Unfortunately, tape is not good to posters so I don't have it
anymore. I also had John Lennon's Imagine as poster.

------
aroman
Maybe I'm the exception, but I never experienced anything but easy access to
the speech. A few months ago I googled it and got the full text and great
YouTube video taping of it. No issues.

------
sarreph
But... It's here? [http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-
speech.pdf](http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf)

------
hcarvalhoalves
It's on YouTube, although I don't know if it's complete:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs)

------
Bulkington
Can we officially retire this discussion, apres anniversary?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3474526](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3474526)

------
Morst
It is on spotify:
[http://open.spotify.com/track/2jtvgfG4XLPmr0BR6p1mk5](http://open.spotify.com/track/2jtvgfG4XLPmr0BR6p1mk5)

------
tehabe
I own a German biography of Martin Luther King by Frederik Hetmann (1979),
which includes a German translation of the speech.

I'm sure the translation is copyrighted under German law.

------
wehadfun
>ask the people sitting near you if they’ve ever heard the >opening lines:

>"I am happy to join with you today..."

If you are a Michael Jackson fan this was included on the song History.

------
paul_f
Isn't the real problem the whole concept of for-profit textbooks? Without
that, we, and our children could read and study these magnificent words.

------
diminoten
Ah yes, I love it when "Hacker News readers" becomes a thing. Just like,
"Redditors have pointed out via YouTube comments..."

------
robmiller
It was in my 8th grade textbook. I remember because I got 50 pts "extra
credit" for memorizing it...and the Gettysburg Address too.

------
ArtDev
Copyrighted by EMI/Sony: [http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/copyright-king-why-
the-i-ha...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/copyright-king-why-the-i-have-a-
dream-speech-still-isn-t-free)

There is some effort to make it public (as it should be):
[http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/internet-activists-are-
wagi...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/internet-activists-are-waging-a-
guerrilla-war-to-free-martin-luther-king-from-copyright)

------
russellsprouts
My English textbook in high school had the text of the speech, and on MLK day
we watched a portion of the video.

------
AznHisoka
That's the secondary reason. Real reason: because I'm too lazy, and frankly
don't really care.

------
jhuckestein
FWIW everyone in my school in Germany read the entire speech in English class.

------
michielvoo
Actually, it was printed in full yesterday in the Dutch newspaper NRC Next.

------
romilgarg4
Totally agree.

------
dmead
false. did a paper on it in college.

------
s32dA
This is one of the most widely circulated speeches on the internet. If you
Google "I Have A Dream Speech", you'll get the pdf, origial text and full
video.

What a stupid post.

~~~
slacka
I can also Google "Man of Steel (2013) torrent" and download a copy in
minutes. That doesn't make it legal. Likewise, you can't stream or show "I
Have A Dream Speech" or "Man of Steel" to an audience without violating
copyright laws.

The real stupidity are our laws extending copyright to 70 years after death,
so backwards that many people just chose to ignore them.

