Just read a couple of amusing articles on BBC news...
Considering all this hype about piracy and illegally using things for personal gain and all that l felt it apt to post..
Abba anger over Danish far-right's use of Mamma Mia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11403230
Ten songs stolen by politicians:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11406906
Personally l hold politicians as liable for it as we are made to be, lm pretty sure or at leas assume when something is played in public permission has to be obtained from the artists, yet the government seem to take the biscuit and use artists music to help them with whatever they need at the time, l personally think they should be held liable for using artists music just like we would be especially since their use of their music would be for political purposes rather than enjoyment, and depending on perspective you could also see it from the side that their use of said music could provide a untrue idea that the artists music used may support the parties views when they did not, which makes me wonder... how many voted certain politicians purely based upon their assume like of music, because lets face it, while most voters may vote on ideals there are some stupid ppl out there that will vote purely based on the style of music they associate with a political party, it may sound stupid but there is prolly some truth in it, so why are politicians allowed to use music in their campaigns without paying royalties?
Considering all this hype about piracy and illegally using things for personal gain and all that l felt it apt to post..
Abba anger over Danish far-right's use of Mamma Mia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11403230
Ten songs stolen by politicians:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11406906
Personally l hold politicians as liable for it as we are made to be, lm pretty sure or at leas assume when something is played in public permission has to be obtained from the artists, yet the government seem to take the biscuit and use artists music to help them with whatever they need at the time, l personally think they should be held liable for using artists music just like we would be especially since their use of their music would be for political purposes rather than enjoyment, and depending on perspective you could also see it from the side that their use of said music could provide a untrue idea that the artists music used may support the parties views when they did not, which makes me wonder... how many voted certain politicians purely based upon their assume like of music, because lets face it, while most voters may vote on ideals there are some stupid ppl out there that will vote purely based on the style of music they associate with a political party, it may sound stupid but there is prolly some truth in it, so why are politicians allowed to use music in their campaigns without paying royalties?























