Talk:Don't Download This Song

Download This Song?

I see someone added that this could be seen as a reply to "Download This Song". I highly doubt Al was thinking of that song when he wrote this one, so is it worth a mention on the page? I personally don't think so, but I wanted to see what others opinions were first. Joltman 12:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it deserves a "See Also" listing at best. --Maxamegalon2000 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lars says that Weird Al was in touch with him, and actually said that "Don't Download This Song" was entirely unrelated to his song. --Twilightsojourn 20:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry Twilight, wiki wouldn't let post with that link standing. Zaklog 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This concept was already done!

Napster_Bad!#Episodes The "Sue All the World" video is a parody of "We Are the World" and it's all about illegally downloading music and it was done several years ago! This has to be mentioned somewhere. Buzda 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily has to be mentioned. If we listed every song that was somehow similar, the article would begin to go off-topic. I haven't seen the video myself, but unless you can prove how related it may be, I would say leave it out (and remember, no original research). Thank you for thinking about this, though! --Twilightsojourn 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, you be the judge. Buzda 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are similarities. I don't see how it's relevant; there have been tons of "We Are the World" parodies, and I would be shocked if some of them didn't cover the same subjects. It's inevitable; heck, I find it hard to believe that there have only been two about file sharing. --Maxamegalon2000 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely see what you mean -- there are certainly similarities (even down to mentioning Ulrich, etc.), but I'm just not sure whether it's relevant enough to put in, especially since I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else. If there are other (documented) places where the parallels are mentioned, then it might seem more fitting -- at this point, though, I'm feeling like we may just be a few individuals who are seeing some similarities, as opposed to there being a more public, reputable, or established concensus regarding the topic. If there was, then it would be more encyclopaedic, and more NPOV/non-original research. Again, though, I think it's really great that you're bringing this up -- it's an important point, and one that definitely falls in the grey area that constitutes what is and isn't fit for a Wikipedia article's content. Especially, thank you for talking about it here first, as opposed to going ahead and adding it without consultation. I know I really appreciate that. --Twilightsojourn 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Especially considering it was put in unreferenced and the link above is now invalid. I've removed the reference to this because it's not objectively relevant. Please feel free to put it back in if you have a citation and justification.--87.115.22.150 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's me I'm that post. Just logged out for some reason. --Sgtlion (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cover Art

Should Soli4.jpg be used as cover art? I don't know the standard.

About the irony.

"Ironically, Yankovic credits the proliferation of music over the internet and sites such as MySpace and YouTube with helping to popularize his album Straight Outta Lynwood onto the Top 10 Charts."

Is it irony when the song is clearly a parody? And as such Al knows this already and it is not a sign of hypocrisy on his part?

Maybe mention should be made as to how this is part of the parody.--FazzMunkle 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how "tongue-in-cheek" Al's comments about filesharing truly are, but while he makes some good points about the RIAA's *response* to filesharing, I don't think he fully understands the problem. Sure, sites like MySpace, YouTube, etc. definitely help an established artist promote his new album above and beyond what his record label would be willing to do, and I'm sure a lot of record execs are hesitant to spend money promoting Al's albums, especially this one because he takes aim at the RIAA's rampant criminalization of fileswappers. I think Atlantic is a good example that record labels take music FAR too seriously (hey, it's their bread and butter) to be happy about anyone doing parodies, which I'd imagine they consider belittling to the original work. However, what needs to be understood here is that it's not really the RIAA looking at "innocent" grandmothers and kids as if they were hardened criminals, it's a bunch of kids, grandmothers, and people from all walks of life committing federal crimes without giving it a second thought. The digital age has created an era where you can steal the contents of a CD or DVD and because the disc is still there, most people don't consider it stealing. If you had the ability to pick up any other kind of merchandise in a store and make a perfect clone of that merchandise, I don't think it would be looked at as harmless in the same way piracy is.

If you could extract the sensation of having sex with a person and distribute it in digital form on the internet, it wouldn't matter at all that the person had consented to have sex with you. You'd still be stealing something precious from them and cheapening it by offering it for free to anyone who asked. It's the same thing when you buy a CD. You are buying THAT CD, and if you want to lend it or give it to someone, go right ahead. However, you can't do stuff like making copies, mashups, or using it in any way that would create a new copy of the work beyond the one you paid for. When someone consents to having sex with you, they consent for ONE encounter with YOU ONLY. If you could digitally "bottle" that experience (and I guess shooting a video of it would be as close as you could get these days), it would be wrong to distribute that data to anyone else, because even though it was given to you freely (i.e. you didn't "steal" sex/rape the person), it doesn't give you the right to give that sexual experience to anyone else, because the person has not consented to that and still retains the right to control who gets to experience having sex with them.

It's been said many times, but musicians and other artists are like prostitutes. Their money is made by selling the right to make copies to record companies, and record companies try to make back their investment by selling CDs. In the same way, a prostitute doesn't literally "sell her body", she merely sells the right to have sex with her. She doesn't detach her vagina and hand it to you so that you can go lend it to all your friends to screw, you just get it for that one night, and if anybody else wants a piece they have to pay just like you did. That's the dynamic we're talking about here, not simply buying a piece of plastic in a store and magically owning the rights to the music encoded on that disc. You own ONE copy of the work, and if you want to give it away you give someone THAT COPY, you don't just rip it to your computer and offer millions of people their own individual copy. If you want to create something and then offer it for free download, fine, just don't do it with something somebody else created.

The argument I hear most frequently (and Al brings it up in his song) is that artists are rich anyway so they don't need the money. Well first of all, artists who are successful now got that way before the internet even existed, and certainly before filesharing became so widespread. Many even predated home taping, so their money was made from people who had no choice but to actually buy the album. If piracy via filesharing is allowed to flourish, artists will lose their primary source of revenue. If you call a plumber to work on your pipes, you understand that even though they're YOUR pipes, he makes his living by unclogging them and therefore must get paid in order to survive. Nobody questions this, but when it comes to artists who must earn a living by selling copies of their work, the reaction is generally "Why pay for something I can get for free?" and the result is that nobody pays and the artist continues to starve. Even established artists (Al included, probably) are not "set for life" at any stage of their career, so they must CONTINUE to sell albums to keep paying their bills. Whenever you see groups from the '80s that you've forgotten about still touring, it's not because they're greedy, it's because they still need to eat, and playing music is how they make their living. They can't just go away and work in a shoe store somewhere.

Grandmothers notwithstanding, it's no surprise that this filesharing business is most widely accepted by the young. After all, they don't have to support themselves, and therefore can't relate to anyone who complains that they're depriving him of income, especially if they feel that this guy is rich enough already because anyone they see on TV or who has an album in record stores must be a multi-millionaire anyway. Just as the hippies of the '60s became the robber barons of the '80s, I fully expect the denizens of the "copyleft" movement who refuse to acknowledge the value of anything they can easily duplicate to abruptly change their way of thinking once they're forced to face reality and have their own bills to pay. Even when you're working for someone else, you're still counting on that paycheck, and you usually have a big company with an even bigger bank account to ensure that you get that check. When you're a musician, you have to make your own living from your music. If the fans enjoy your music so much that they're downloading it like crazy but can't be bothered to actually pay for it, and the record company who gave you an advance cancels your contract because they're not making any of that money back due to all the downloading, it is very much a crime for people to share your music for free with anyone who wanted it instead of people being required to actually PAY you for it. ((unsigned))

Ehhrm... okaayy? I'm sure there's an appropriate place for that piece of opinion somewhere. I fail to see how the majority of it relates to the article. I do think that the word "ironically" is not appropriate in the context. It would be if Ulrich was doing something similar though..../Kriko 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ironically" was not my comment. Mine begins with "I don't know how 'tongue-in-cheek'..." You would think at least the Discussion page of Wikipedia would be an actual FORUM where individual posters are identified, instead of one big editable file. What a bunch of crap.

As for the relevance of my diatribe, this is supposed to be a "discussion", isn't it? I'm simply discussing the points brought up in the song, and disputing some of the assertions made, if they are indeed to be taken seriously. ((unsigned)

Perhaps it would be easier to identify individual posters if they remembered to sign their comments with four tildes. As for the concerns about your discussion, remember that talk pages are for discussing the article in question, not the subject of the article. --Maxamegalon2000 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please sign your comments so I know where one ends and another begins? Also, why are you ranting about piracy on this website? This is not a forum for such issues, but even if it was, what exactly do you think we are supposed to do about it anyway? Qwertyca 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This could be on purpose.

"The first verse of the song mentions the file sharing applications (incorrectly referred to as "sites' or web-sites) Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire, and KaZaA. In the music video, all of the names are bleeped."

As many ignorant of how these services work might call them "sites" or "web-sites."

Remember, this is a parody. Not necessarily Al's own personal opinions.--FazzMunkle 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleeped? The video I've seen (at http://dontdownloadthissong.com/) doesn't have them bleeped. What source has them bleeped? 71.96.209.226 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I've never seen it bleeped any of the times I've watched the video (on different websites). Shivers _talk 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why would Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire, and KaZaA be bleeped??? -- Iwannafly

It might be bleeped so as to not "support" them... Maybe some people think that if it was bleeped, it would lessen the chance of more people becoming members of them. James1293 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation: If I remember correctly I was referring to a previous edit of the article that mentioned bleeping something. I can't remember when this was (I have neither the time nor energy to figure out when) but that's why I entered this in the discussion. It doesn't seem to be there now so this particular discussion is moot.--FazzMunkle 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hidden lyrics at end of song

Although it's not included in the lyrics in the CD insert, the last line of the song seems to be Yankovic singing "you cheap bastard." I only found this audible on the DVD side of the DualDisc. I think this is worth mentioning in the song article, if someone else will confirm what I'm hearing... Mooveeguy 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this worth mentioning? How is it notable? --Maxamegalon2000 20:17, 6 November 2006

(UTC)

Well, in the Weird Al article, there's a quote in which he says he tries to maintain a "more or less family-friendly image," so it makes me wonder if he wrote that ending line and then decided against leaving it audible. I think it's an amusing bit of trivia, and since songs are getting their own articles, why not flesh them out with this sort of information? Mooveeguy 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"You bastard" isn't swearing any more than saying "burn in hell", and he's said that a number of times. I don't see how this is worth noting. In any event, White & Nerdy's MV has two people flipping off Wierd Al. Titanium Dragon 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But the flipping off is censoredZiiv 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC

He did say "slut" once each in "Gump" and "Jerry Springer". Did you know that? --Ryanasaurus0077 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "you cheap bastard" is more of a swear than "burn in hell." In "burn in hell," hell is being referred to as a place, not being used as an interjection, meaning it's being used in its original, nonprofane definition. In "you cheap bastard," the issue of whether the parents of the person being addressed were married when said person was conceived is not at issue, and the word is being used for interjectory purposes. "You cheap bastard" could be changed to "you cheap jerk" without losing any logistical meaning; "burn in hell" could not be changed to anything and still have the same meaning, whereas when hell is used in "what the hell," it could be changed to "what in the world" or simply "what" and retain the same meaning, only with less intensity, making it more swearful in that case. 153.42.168.174 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lars

He's mentioned twice in the article about the same thing. Someone delete 1 reference to him please. --Mjrmtg 14:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did but it will probably be back in two days.--Jim Shorts 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Jim Shorts

Political?

The article states, "The song is one of Weird Al's few outright political songs."

Is this a political song? Being that this is satire and meant to be comical, I can't really determine his political views from it, or really from anything else he says.

"Few"? Does this mean that Al has more than one political songs (even assuming this is one of them)? If so, what are his other "outright political songs"? I don't recall any of them. "Canadian Idiot" mentions some political stuff, but again, there's no way to tell whether he actually supports or opposes the political aspects of Canada. "Christmas At Ground Zero"? "Headline News"? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that any of his songs are "outright political."

Allixpeeke 71.255.207.140 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what else of his could possibly be considered "outright political" as well. Also, "outright political" is too strongly worded. This song is not "outright political". Even "political" can be a stretch depending on your definition of "political". PyroGamer 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Effective messaging

This isn't entirely relevant to the article, but I have to say that, silly or not, I think this is song is the single most effective piece of anti-music piracy propaganda I've ever heard. (I'm using "propaganda" in a strictly descriptive, value-neutral sense here.) What does everyone else think? Zaklog 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there seems to be confusion as to whether Yankovic is proclaiming an anti-piracy message via this song, or whether he's just parodying the whole situation. Magic Pickle 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Yankovic has said in the past his main problem with piracy isn't the potential loss of songs, its the less "family-friendly" parodies that are attributed to him on P2P networks, and he feels that has tainted his reputation. 68.151.23.179 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is WRONG

The second last entry in the trivia section states "One of the lyrics is 'Even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong', although he's the creator of Napster.".

THIS IS WRONG. Lars Ulrich is the drummer in the band Metallica and is well known for his outspoken opposition to song piracy online. The creator of Napster is Shawn Fanning. Jeez, how could someone be so obviously wrong??? Qwertyca 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't remove it yourself. --Maxamegalon2000 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Parody of what?

Is this song a parody? And if it is, what is it a parody of?--69.234.216.30 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, the song is a style parody, not a parody. --Maxamegalon2000 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.188.158 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Weirdaldontdownload.jpeg

Image:Weirdaldontdownload.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hands Across America Melody

The beginning and parts of the song may sound like We Are The World, but the chorus is obviously a rip on the Hands Across America chorus. Of course, since both songs where by USA for Africa, I guess its not surprising. -- Suso (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Squigglevision...?

This article claims that the video uses 'Squigglevision', where in fact only the first minute the four minute long video does so. The rest is in pencil or charcoal frame-by-frame, from what I can tell. Is this worth changing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.224.254 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Premiere date

This article claims that the music video premiered on Yahoo Video in August 2006. This is not entirely correct; Bill Plympton presented the video already at Tampere Film Festival in March 2006. -- Taotriad (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Al's own views on downloading

The little bit about Al's own views on downloading music... I'm just thinking that the quote shown is from three years prior to the song. So I mean, isn't there some way to confirm that the song gives a more recent opinion? Kind of just thinking out loud, but maybe it's something that could be looked at. 70.54.1.51 (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don't Download This Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116193510/http://www.plymptoons.com/news/appearances.html to http://www.plymptoons.com/news/appearances.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Don't Download This Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821182931/http://music.yahoo.com/premieres to http://music.yahoo.com/premieres
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013091911/http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/ to http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken infobox image

The infobox image looks broken for me. Does anybody know how to fix it? 46.132.189.34 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Visual gag in the music video

At 2 minutes 35 seconds in the official music video on YouTube, after the line "Don't take away money from artists just like me/How else can I afford another solid-gold Humvee, And diamond-studded swimming pools? These things don't grow on trees” what appears to be a Humvee falls out of a tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

I think it’s funny, but I’m not sure it’s worth putting in the article, so I decided to put this in the discussion/talk instead. RetroFanboy990 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)