Not sure why 'fair use' gets trotted out when people discuss music copyright as it's really to do with academic or worthy type exemptions. In the UK it doesn't exist at all when it comes to music if you at what 2 Live Crew did with Pretty Woman they would have got hammered by the judge over here.
On another note what's the deal with SOPA Lost? Never heard so much whining about freedom of speech in all my life.
Yes, Fair Use deals with exemptions. However, the reason I "trotted" Fair Use into the discussion is that it has been an essential factor in deciding cases involving sampling (and defining the view of recording a sound verses taking the same 3 notes from the actual composition)
Bridgeport Music, Inc. et. al. vs. Dimension Films et. al.
Basically, I included it in the discussions because of its historical significance with regards to the use of using another's work, and that it's ultimately a gray area as demonstrated with cases involving music, film, literature, as well as cases where a samples of a song have been used in a different medium, such as film in the case of
Bridgeport Music, Inc. et. al. vs. Dimension Films et. al. People who don't know much about copyright should at least be informed about Fair Use because of its significance.
The general guidelines viewed regarding music copyright is that the owner of the copyright maintains all the rights of the protected piece of music, including the ability to reproduce, distribute, rearrange and perform the music. Hence, Fair Use is what protects individuals and organizations from facing legal backlash when using sample of someone's music. However, the gray area comes from the courts deciphering and laying the groundwork for defining Fair Use as it differs on a case to case basis.
You're right in that it typically is aimed at protecting educational and public institutes within certain circumstances, but it also saved 2 Live Cru's ass since the Court found that Parody was protected under Fair Use.
And you make a crucial point in the copyright is not Universal and is defined per country.
SOPA is a loosely written bill by our "brilliant" U.S. Government who apparently have nothing better to do (like stabilize our shit economy) than be fuck buddies with the RIAA and MPAA. SOPA basically would give the government the right to block/shutdown any website found to be in violation of copyright, piracy, theft of IPs etc. While this may seem like a good idea on paper in order to protect intellectual properties and whatnot, the bill lacks in several areas in terms of definition and essentially places all power in the governments hands allowing them to act immediately when they're aware of a SOPA violation--there's no "checks and balances" system for lack of a better phrase.
A simple example: a girl who sings a famous song and posts it on youtube can not only face immediate fines/imprisonment, but if youtube were to fail to remove the video in a timely manner the government could/would essentially shut down youtube without warning and without a trial/hearing.
I have no problem with laws that protect IP/Copyright owners. However, when a bill is written that enables the government to have that much unmonitored control, nothing good can come out of it.
Just my .02.
Cheers.