Eria

I was reading the news when I came across an article about the Smashing Pumpkins suing Virgin records. Basically they are suing them for damaging their artistic integrity by using their music in Pepsi promotions. At first I agreed with the Smashing Pumpkins till I got to the details of the lawsuit, they demand all the profits. Now I can understand needing to pay for legal council and everything but if it is about artistic integrity then why not give the profits to charity. If you want to read the article it can be found on yahoo in the entertainment news.

I guess my question is do you believe it is about artistic integrity or the money with this case and all other cases like it?

__________________


I'm just me.

Luminous

I suppose there are multiple perspectives on why they want the money. On the one hand, they may just want the money so that the record company will not have gained anything from sort of using their music without permission, and I certainly think that's understandable, why should someone profit from using someone else's work? On the other hand, suing for all the profits won't gain them back much more artistic integrityany more than them just saying they were affiliated with it. Of course if they do get the money, it would probably be a big enough slap on the wrist that they won't do it again, and perhaps that is what its about. Although the article doesn't really specifiy what the money range is that they are suing for, just that its all the profits. Does anyone know how much moeny it would be around?

Anyways, donating to charity would definately be a reputation boost to compensate as well, among other things. If they kept the money if they won the case, people might spin the story that they are less angry about the integrity hit, than they are angry about not getting a cut of the money pie for it. I'm kind of undecided as to which it is.

__________________