Shamed pop star Gary Glitter is to receive a GBP100,000 pay cheque from computer giant Hewlett Packard after bosses chose to use his song Do You Wanna Touch Me in a new TV advertising campaign. The singer, real name Paul Gadd, was recently released from a prison in Vietnam, where he served nearly three years for sexually assaulting two girls aged nine and 11. He has since been deported back to his native Britain - but is in line to receive the cash sum from Hewlett Packard chiefs over the use of the 1972 track to promote a new touch-screen model. The adverts actually feature the 1982 cover by Joan Jett, but Glitter is set to get the money in royalties. However, the deal has angered child protection organisations in the US. A spokesperson for Child Abuse-watch.net says, "It shows a distinct lack of sensitivity."
Two things come to mind on reading this. The first is what the heck were Hewlett Packard doing using one of his tracks? Do they really want to be associated with this man? The second is that this payout pretty much sums what's wrong with the world. People commit crimes and then get awarded 'compensation for mental hardship' for doing the time in prison they deserve whilst their poor victims get no money and no help. Disgusting.
Technically it's not his track. It's a cover by Joan Jett and the Black Hearts. They should definitely be getting the royalties over it though.
How is he being paid "for mental hardship"? He made a piece of art. They want to use the art. He gets royalties for that. Would people be complaining if he were, say, a grocery store clerk, and he worked for a week and got paid for his efforts? Why is it "wrong" to pay him for work he did? This is not to in any way excuse or exonerate him for what he did, but his actions as a person have no impact on the fact that he made a thing and someone wants to buy it. Harlan Ellison is a colossal dickweed, but he created some very nice pieces of writing. Does it diminish the writing that Ellison grabbed a woman's breasts and refused to apologize for it? Should he not get paid royalties because of that? If you're going to take the position that once someone commits a crime, they are barred from earning money, then you leave no other solutions than lifetime imprisonment or the death penalty.
What's the matter with you Brits? This guy is a child molester and all your government has to do is pass a quick law assessing a "fine" for any such behavior by any British citizen, whether inside your country or abroad, and seize the damned check from HP. It doesn't matter if HP writes a check as long as Glitter does not get to keep it! In fact, there is a certain sweet justice if he gets the check, and the same day, the government seizes it! If I was a citizen in your country, I'd be lobbying my government officials.
Seriously, what for? He committed a crime and did his time. Why would it be wrong for him to earn money for whatever he has created? The guy is major jerk (not to mention a pedophile) but that isn't a reason to stop him from getting his money. The government interfering with the dealings of private companies and citizens create nothing but problems.
It is in poor to taste to select a song associated with him. However, having done so, they owe this guy the royaltyies. The tasteful thing to do would be to pay the royalty fee then pull the ad. There is no reason this guy shouldn't be allowed to earn money. He is legally free. Just don't let him sing at kids' birthday parties.
Well, of ALL the songs to choose (not that I really know the rest of his repertoire), that one is particularly creepy in association with HIM! <shudder>
All I can say is that back in the day (and not all that long ago, by the way) the crimes for which Mr. Glitter was found guilty would have been dealt with in such a manner that there would have been no after for these types of complications to have had chance to rear their ugly heads.
Unfortunately, all we can do is what is in the letter of the law. I am all for changing hte law...or...masked vigilantes are cool. I know a few candidates for them.
Well if britain would put the man in prison or a mental asylum (where he belongs) then it wouldn't matter how much money he gets.
I make masks...its kinda a hobby of mine. Hop on a plane to Sacramento and I'll hook you up. I already have my masked vigilante/superhero persona. Kharma's a b****, and so am I.
I would also like to jump the bandwagon of vigilantes and become V. (Yes I realize I'm a girl. I don't care.)
Argh, the best one is taken. Okay, I'll be...uh...Daredevil? . .. ... Does light yagami count as a vigilante?
Batman was hella awesome, but Zorro was totally hotter. He's got the Spicy Latino card, and that trumps the Funky, Useful Gadgets card. Back on topic, that kiddie diddler Gary Glitter should be paid money for the use of his song. It's legal, and an entirely irrelevant to his crimes. Hell, Michael Jackson songs are still everywhere, and no one makes a fuss about that.
