Don't Download This Song

Post by **TMBJon** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:42 pm

Sweet, thanks. That's just what I was looking for. I think this kind of does mean DDTS will not be a direct parody of We Are The World. Anyone disagree?

Oh yeah, here's your smiley, U62...

Post by **Bruce the Duck** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:14 am

TMBJon @ Jul 23 2006, 04:42 PM wrote: Sweet, thanks. That's just what I was looking for. I think this kind of does mean DDTS will not be a direct parody of We Are The World. Anyone disagree?

Well, I don't think it's conclusive either way. First of all he said "you'd probably stay away..." He didn't say definitely. And he didn't mention "We Are the World" specifically. And I also think it might make a difference how old the song is. Obviously you wouldn't parody a charity song after it was just released. But 2 decades later? I don't think that would be too insensitive. Does the charity USA For Africa even exist anymore?

Thanks for the info, U62, but unfortunately I don't think it solves the mystery.

Post by **weirdojace** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:32 am

U62 @ Jul 23 2006, 04:27 PM wrote: I have the interview uploaded on my website. Do you think it would be ok to share the link here, or would that be against WOWAY's file sharing policy?

It would be okay because Wal-Mart was giving the interview out for free anyway.

CatraDhtem · Post by **CatraDhtem** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:50 am

Well, it's not a defunct charity, at least as of last year.

www.usaforafrica.org

Post by **Elvis** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:14 am

Hmm... that is a pretty strong argument for it not being a direct parody. Though it was a pretty generic statement and leaves a lot room for interpretation. It doesn't rule out a parody ("probably"), and I think people would be able to see the humor in a parody of WATW now. It's been around long enough, and had enough cultural references, that it's kind of moved out the "charity song" category to the "'80s nostalgia" category.

And it doesn't explain Bill Plympton's comment. I'm still leaning towards it being a direct parody. It's the best lead we have for the fifth parody.

Dave

Post by **Bruce the Duck** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:54 am

You know, there's been very strong points made on both sides of the debate (mostly from Greg and Dave). But I thought of a point that I don't think I've seen made here yet.

The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that there WILL be a song called "Don't Download This Song" on SOL and that it in some way parodies "We Are The World." But whether it is a parody or style parody is kind of irrelevent to the "sensitivity" issue, because either way he's using the original song as a source of comedy.

If the song is a STYLE PARODY, then Al gets to keep all the proceeds from it and still parody "We Are the World." But if it's a DIRECT PARODY, then Al parodies the song, but the proceeds go to charity! That's the key point here, since Greg has provided proof that the charity is still active. The royalties Al would have to pay wouldn't go to Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, or Quincy Jones. They'd go to "USA for Africa." In fact, it would be a good bet that Al would have arranged for 100% of the proceeds from that song to go directly to the charity, similar to what he did with "Achy Breaky Song."

So, by doing a parody of the song, he wouldn't really be mocking the charity, but rather helping to contribute to it! Not only would they get the royalties, but interest in the original version (which is still widely available to buy) would be renewed. But a style parody would deprive them of that charity.

I'm interested to here anyone's comments on this idea, especially Dave and Greg's!

cody · Post by **cody** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:10 am

weirdojace @ Jul 23 2006, 04:32 PM wrote: It would be okay because Wal-Mart was giving the interview out for free anyway.

well, weirdal.com gave out "you're pitiful" for free, but only certain mirrors are allowed to be posted.

Post by **weirdojace** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:26 am

Wow... that's a REALLY good point. All the proceeds from that song would go to charity... I never thought about that. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Post by **U62** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:22 am

[removed]

Post by **Bruce the Duck** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:24 am

That doesn't play. You need a liscense to play that it.