Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Entertainment means Clouds Don't Exist, and other Non Sequitors

According to a BBC report on the findings of the Culture Committee (actual parliamentary thingy, not Boy George's latest venture), copyright on performances may be set to expand like it's on Viagra. I've not read the report - I'm obviously too busy for in-depth commentary, but the reasoning in the article is spurious fun (hehe, or "furious spun"... ahem) that gets close to the Chewbacca Defence ("chew back-a da fence!") in terms of sense. Let's look.

"We have not heard a convincing reason why a composer and his or her heirs should benefit from a term of copyright which extends for lifetime and beyond, but a performer should not," the report said.

This is the usual "X (person, country) has it, therefore Y should have it too" argument, which ends up with each country or affected party leapfrogging the others in a never-ending ever-extending circle of WANT. Yeah. The opposite - that a composer should be afforded advantages that performers do without - would be an admission of SHAME and BACKWARD-THINKING. (Or "gnikniht".)

"Given the strength and importance of the creative industries in the UK, it seems extraordinary that the protection of intellectual property rights should be weaker here than in many other countries whose creative industries are less successful," the report said.

Extraordinary? Doesn't this imply that there's some correlation between stronger IP rights, and a more successful ("richer") entertainment industry? Are we obviously crazy for having such a weakly protected, yet so successful stab at mindless entertainment? Yes! Obviously.

Maybe the real correlation here is an inverse one. To me, that sentence implies that stronger IP rights leads to less success, but I am clearly gnikniht here. The two quoted artists - McCartney and Cliff - obviously continue to contribute to the ongoing and progressive success of UK music culture by... uh... living in big mansions? Threatening to shoot themselves in the head? I'm not sure. I did manage to sell Paul's "Flaming Pie" album to a second hand shop for a couple of quid once. I got laughed at (for owning it, not for the price), but that was effectively lunch so I couldn't complain. INDUSTRY SUCCESS!

Anyway, enough capitalised ranting - uh, I mean, public awareness. I'm off to start a "musicians are all lazy f**ktards" campaign to see who really cares about entertainment, dude. Who's with me?

p.s. please don't bash me over the head with guitars next time you see me

No comments: