You're Pitiful

Post by **mewrio** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 am

Al would most likely not release it, if the artist denied permission. But, what if the "record company" denied permission. Blunt might have told Al he could release it, while his "record company" denied permission. As the problem with releasing the album was due to "record company politics". This would be my best guess.

It doesn't work that way... James Blunt and his own management get to make that decision. His record company only owns the recording of the song, not the actual words or music.

Of course, the record company could be pressuring Mr Blunt into denying permission, but they would have to be pretty stupid to do that, since he'd be one of their most important artists at the moment.

And regarding the website that had to take down the parody, it may have been that they had ripped the instrumental from the original recording of the song and used that as the background for the parody. Either that or a journalist somewhere actually made a mistake...

Post by **KnottyEmily** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:12 am

it might have also been because that parody was insulting Blunt directly [?], and was the "soundtrack" to the hit-Blunt-with-tomatos game...YP isn't insulting Blunt, so his parody might be left alone. That is, unless Blunt's record company come up with some other reason to have it taken down

Post by **Elvis** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:48 am

I expect Al wouldn't release something to "get back" at a record company or Mr. Blunt. I'm sure Al has the written permission of Blunt and Blunt's record label before he made it available for download. For reasons we don't know yet, it just won't be on the new album.

As for the other parody that was removed from the tomato-throwing site, we don't know enough about it from that article to know why it was pulled. Like someone said, if it stole music or other copyrighted samples from the original, that's reason enough to have it pulled. If it's just an insulting parody then worst they could do is ask nicely to have it removed because it would be covered under free speech, unless laws are different in the UK.

Dave

WeirdAce · Post by **WeirdAce** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:51 pm

Is it wrong that I edited the mp3 with an mp3 editer then cut down the song to about 30 seconds of pure chorus and then, using a data cable, transfered the edited version to my cell phone to where it is now set to " ringtone "?

Edited for clarity

Post by **Grom** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:54 pm

It's wrong that you put absolutely no effort into making that a coherent sentence...

tessaigapants · Post by **tessaigapants** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:34 pm

WeirdAce @ Jun 9 2006, 02:51 PM wrote: Is it wrong that I edited the mp3 with an mp3 editer then cut down the song to about 30 seconds of pure chorus and then, using a data cable, transfered the edited version to my cell phone to where it is now set to " ringtone "?

Edited for clarity

"Fair use" and "copyrights" are quite a gray area.
You'll probably get away with it, as well I believe you should.
If you're in public and your phone rings, is that considered some
form of public performance? Do you now have 2'nd "unlicenced"
copy (albiet just a snippit) of the song on your phone?
Your cellular carrier would have wished that you transfered ringtones
thru their system. Did you steal from them since you used a direct-connect wire?
I could go on like this all day. Somebody throw a weasel in my face.

da_dom · Post by **da_dom** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:32 pm

i dont think this song will be on the album because hes done it for free and it might be a reason to put down to 10 songs. or the album could be delayed so he could of done this to shut us up

Post by **TMBJon** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:34 pm

SPOILER I'm predicting this song will end up on the DVD bonus features, mastered in 5.1 Surround.

[MOD edit: Added spoiler tags. Watch the album spoilers, you're not in the spoiler forum!!

Prosthetic_Lips · Post by **Prosthetic_Lips** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:36 pm

da_dom @ Jun 9 2006, 12:32 PM wrote: ... so he could of done this to shut us up

If he had released a song to "shut us up" then he failed miserably. There has been more posting on the boards since the new song than I have ever seen.

On the other hand, if he did it to start up a hype machine, then it worked wonderfully.

On the gripping hand, if he did it just because he wants us to love him more, then it worked!

The Sporkman · Post by **The Sporkman** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:20 pm

Does anyone else think the expression "grow a clue" is a little odd? Isn't the more common expression "get a clue?" The only other time I recall hearing someone say "grow a clue" was in an episode of the Weird Al Show.