UK Music Lobbyist Says Rethinking Fair Use Is 'Intellectual Masturbation'
from the who-needs-fair-use? dept
We've talked a few times about how the UK is going through yet another copyright rethink with a key focus (among others) on whether or not the country needs more expansive fair use rules within copyright. While we've seen similar discussions happen (and be ignored) in the UK, the good news is that the panel investigating this issue seems to include some really knowledgeable folks on the subject. Of course, it appears that some of the established interests aren't so thrilled about all of this.Andrew Dubber kindly sent over an article from Music Week, which is locked up behind a paywall, or I'd point you to it, in which various music industry folks fret about this awful concept of fair use. The article seems to be based on the ridiculous premise that "fair use" is something that only harms creative folks, and is only designed to help tech firms. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and it's troubling that these supposed "music industry" experts don't realize just how important fair use is in content creation itself. The article quotes a person from PPL insisting that supporting fair use is a straight up choice between "helping Google or helping our creative industries." That someone in the content creation business is against fair use is a travesty, and it suggests that they know very little about content creation. Furthermore, the idea that this is an "us against them" sort of thing is equally troubling. The point of fair use is to make content creation itself better and to provide more value to the world.
But the most ridiculous comments of all come from UK Music chief Feargal Sharkey, who has a way with saying silly things. According Sharkey, rethinking fair use is "a distraction at best" and really just an "exercise in intellectual masturbation." I'm sorry, but if Sharkey thinks fair use is just about "intellectual masturbation," he should not be leading an organization representing musicians. Fair use is incredibly important to all sorts of content creators, and it's a shame that the guy who's supposed to be representing them is now forcefully arguing against fair use. It should make the members of UK Music seriously consider who they've picked to speak for them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, feargal sharkey, music, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feargal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feargal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teenage Kicks
That's not the case here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undertones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teenage Kicks
That's not the case here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undertones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
Feargal Sharkey was the lead singer for the Undertones. He was a musician himself, so that refutes the accusation that "The problem is that these 'music industry experts' aren't creative themselves, they just freeload off of artists . . ."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
So I'd say he may have a particular talent in singing, but it doesn't look like he's been all that creative. Maybe he is, but if so, then he's a hypocrite on this fair use issue. A major hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
It's just more of the Masnick Effect at work - leave out relevant information, make snide remarks, and generally pee on anything put forth by anyone in "the industry".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
Would you like to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
Or do you just assume they never played the cover songs until they got entered the first pub they were booked at, and were just magically able to play cover songs immediately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
Jimi Hendrix got his start playing other people's music, too.
Creative doesn't solely mean a person is a writer. Brian Eno is a creative force behind a lot of albums without even touching an instrument!
And I'm completely glossing over the fact that songwriting credits are solely for lyric-writing. They imply nothing about the musical aspects. That's why lyrics have to have their own copyright separate from the music. Feargal could have written the melodies; or maybe it's his interpretation of those melodies that he contributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
And you might want to look up the definition of fair use.
The sheer amount of idiocy on this site recently is mind boggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teenage Kicks
But great creative types don't always realize that the creative process involves (at least in part) building upon the shoulders of those who went before. If nothing else, fair use includes the ability to discover and discuss other creative works. Surely up-and-coming artists benefit from that?
Once you're a "music industry executive" you apparently have no need for learning and honing your craft. (Although one wonders how the business folks can discuss music from a wide variety of sources without hearing snippets in a fair use manner.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Teenage Kicks
That this guy is against fair use only means that he is a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is not an argument.
It is like saying “The point of patents is to stimulate innovation”. The later is correct too, but it is not what happens. And you (at techdirt) are fighting against patents because it doesn't do what it's intended for, not because you are against innovation.
So don't use the intention behind fair use as an argument, use its results instead !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
double entendre
...Yes, I was talking about intellectual masturbation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teenage Kicks
Feargal may still be wrong (although I don't think he's against fair use, just the review process). But playing covers has _nothing_ to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Oligarchy Bullshite
And what on Earth happened to Feargal Sharkey? I saw the guy live way-back-when. I thought he had a brain in his head and creativity in his heart. Apparently they've been removed and replaced with greed and mindless robotic mechanisms. Extremely sick stuff. Shame on Sharkey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps it is.. but look how Vivid Video and other porn companies have monetized just that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More kicks
Copyright only applies to *public performance*. I don't remember the exact legal definition, and it could be different in the U.K., but it wouldn't apply to practice. Again, nothing to do with fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't we just give them money for nothing? Oh wait, I'm Canadian, and I'm already doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everyone does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
representation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]