They use his song 'Rock and Roll' in this film, made years before his outing as a vile, predatory paedophile, so he would have been receiving royalties, and still will be.
Should evil paedos still benefit from such films or songs being repeated?
Pretty sure it was a one off deal. They don't have to pay a musician every single time they repeat a film on TV that has one of their songs.
shareIf he wrote it he's still probably getting royalties. That song is commonly used in sports arenas here. Broadcasters pay for blanket licenses to use music and the revenues are funneled back to the songwriters as royalties using a statistical formula.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
[deleted]
The writer of the song will get a one off payment for a film, BBC don't have to pay for music they use but other channels do. I doubt Glitter wrote the song so will just get vocal payment, which is never a huge amount.
No one seems to mention one of Glitters songs is in The Spice Girls move....
[deleted]
Are you suggesting that if you commit a crime you should not get paid anymore?
shareGood question, mikainen - and unsurprisingly no answer from the OP to date.
Perhaps he thinks some crimes should trigger this, and some not...say, paedophilia YES, but unprovoked murder of an adult with torture NO. What about repeated domestic abuse with violence? Or fraudulent extraction of life savings from a pensioner leading to the victim's suicide? Which of those...or do you mean all crimes? Would that include burglary, common assault, tax evasion? Come on, jh66 - tell us what you think.
I'm sure the government would love your help in drafting the complex legal wording to get such a law put in place. You've presumably thought it through...I mean, surely you're not just some sad troll without a real-world life talking b**locks on the web, are you?
mikainen^
Good catch!
"Much communication in a motion, without conversation or a notion"