Hewlett Packard Supports Child Molesters
You really wouldn't think that a computer company would be in a gossip website. Well you would also think that a computer company would have more brains than to use a Gary Glitter song as the basis for an entire ad campaign. While Gary Glitter sits at home in the UK dodging death threats, Hewlett Packard has paid him almost $200,000 to use his song Do You Want To Touch Me as the basis of their ad campaign.
Sure, they were sneaky about it by using Joan Jett's cover version from the 80's, but Joan really doesn't get much money from it and I'm sure she's pissed to be associated with this whole thing going on. The money goes to the writer, who is Gary Glitter.
Have you ever read the lyrics of the song?
'Every girl an boy. Needs a little joy. All you do is sit an stare.
'Beggin on my knees. Baby, wont you please. Run your fingers through my hair.'
Yeah, I bet he was humming that when he was molesting all of those kids over in Asia. Meanwhile the commercial shows a bunch of kids using the computer.
Why in the hell would HP choose a song which improves the life of a child molester? There are hundreds of thousands of songs in the world they could have chosen and they choose one that is going to put $200,000 in a molester's pocket.
It is sick and disgusting and HP should apologize, take down the ads, give a whole bunch of money to several organizations dealing with abused children and then have to watch a screening of Major Movie Star in Russian.
Sure, they were sneaky about it by using Joan Jett's cover version from the 80's, but Joan really doesn't get much money from it and I'm sure she's pissed to be associated with this whole thing going on. The money goes to the writer, who is Gary Glitter.
Have you ever read the lyrics of the song?
'Every girl an boy. Needs a little joy. All you do is sit an stare.
'Beggin on my knees. Baby, wont you please. Run your fingers through my hair.'
Yeah, I bet he was humming that when he was molesting all of those kids over in Asia. Meanwhile the commercial shows a bunch of kids using the computer.
Why in the hell would HP choose a song which improves the life of a child molester? There are hundreds of thousands of songs in the world they could have chosen and they choose one that is going to put $200,000 in a molester's pocket.
It is sick and disgusting and HP should apologize, take down the ads, give a whole bunch of money to several organizations dealing with abused children and then have to watch a screening of Major Movie Star in Russian.
29 comments:
Probably if HP gets complaints about this they would do something about it.
then let's get the complaint train started. WTF?
then let's get the complaint train started. WTF?
sorry about the double post...got a little mouse happy...
I don't disagree that HP shouldn't be funding Gary Glitter's sick life, BUT, I personally had no idea that Joan Jett's recording was a re-make. I could see the people coming up the campaign not knowing that either. Could/Should someone have caught it? Yes, but I can also see how it could have been missed--the individuals charged with securing the rights were probably younger than me and the names 'Joan Jett' and 'Gary Glitter' probably meant nothing to them.
I'm just saying...
Now, if you tell me someone pointed this out up front and they still went with the song, that's another story altogether...
lol@kris
I'm with skittlekitty on this. Last time we had a gary glitter post, I didn't know that he did the NBA(?) song either.
his is what I wrote:
I am very upset about the ad campaign featuring the song written by the child molester Gary Glitter. I will never buy a product from a company that would financially support his behavior.
To:
http://h10076.www1.hp.com/education/contact_hped.htm
Come on, at the very least a person coming across the name Gary Giltter would google it, its weird.
Even his wiki page states him as a child molester. Any corporate legel department would be seriously amiss not to know whoe and what he is. I have zero tolerance for molesters.
I have zero tolerance for molesters, too but if y'all are gonna get up in arms about it, you may want to take a look at the rest of your products in the house. Make sure you don't have a Roman Polanski film or an R Kelly single on your computer somewhere. its hard to ban every single thing that profits a monster.
Maybe they think publicity whether good or bad is publicity nonetheless
The songwriting credit would be in the name of Paul Gadd, not Gary Glitter. The ad people must be too young to remember the original by The Glitter Band.
He used to live near me, before going off to the Far East. His girlfriends were always around 16 or so - the age of consent in the UK. Paul Gadd would have been about 40 then.
Bad fish- I don't have any Polanski or R. Kelly items. I do my best to walk the talk and not just spout off at the mouth.
But seriously when I worked at HBO the legal department was all over every detail in contracts if they 'missed' this PR factoid then they are just .. well stupid comes to mind, or they think the public is stupid or doesn't care. I do though- as we all do.
I am a big believer in voicing my opinion when it matters to me.
I'll give you any money someone there doesn't know Gary Glitter is Paul Gadd.
Fish, all depends on your definition of Monster...
...and for the record I don't have ANY R. Kelley or R. Polanski in my house. OR Michael Jackson.
And Katja, I just did the same...thanks for the link/web address...
Agreed. And what about Ford and Kiefer Sutherland, a coke head DUI convicted actor doing voice overs for a car company. Cars + DUI's don't mix right?
Wasn't Polanki in the States for some type of an award he was given.
I didn't know this until this article either. Some people judge art separately from the artist and some can't. For many of us, it depends on the artist and the crime.
So, instead of the griping about whether someone is right or wrong for being offended or not offended, either write HP about your disgust, or don't.
I had no idea Gary Glitter wrote the song. I agree it is not appropriate to use a song written by him, but most people associate it with Joan Jett, which is probably what HP did.
Yeah, depends on your definition, but I'm just saying. OK so you dont have an R Kelly album...got anything produced by him? Read the fine print in the credits. I'm not saying you're all hypocrites but geez you're so fucking self righteous and adamant about it, I bet theres all sorts of things you all personally own that were made by a person you wouldn't want to support. For me, thats anything with a Scientologist...but its damn hard to give up My Name Is Early and Beck.
But oh I forgot, everyone here is so fucking perfect.
Ever watched a hockey game where they DIDN'T play his song "Rock 'n Roll" at every opportunity??
HP exec's know exactly who Paul / Gary is. His music isn't played anywhere in the UK, but it's still really popular in the US which earns him $300,00 / yr in royalties. Good old Capitolism.
i can see all points on this, but im with El on this. you can't control who gets royalties for most stuff BUT to draw up a new contract after the fact and hand over much needed money to a broke ass pedo is real fuckin dumb.
For me, I can't seperate the person from the product. I can't sit and watch a Polanski film, and a Micheal Jackson or Gary Glitter track gets the radio turned off. Not that either of them get played much these days.
Roman Polanski has not returned to the US since he raped that 13 year old girl - he accepted that award by video link.
HP bought a clue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/garyglitter/3280385/Hewlett-Packard-adverts-featuring-Gary-Glitter-song-dropped.html
This totaly sucks. Never knew Gary wrote my favorite Joan Jett song ever. I sing this all the time at Kareoke. Now, I don't know. Just seems kinda creepy.
Oh for fuck's sake - the only version ANYONE knows is Joan's! You must be even older than I am to know it was GG's version - let it go. You act like they did it with the intention of financing GG's next trip to PedoBear Land - all they know it that it's a popular tune that fits with their ad. And I doubt Joan cares 'cause any $$ is welcome in this Republicunt ressession.
i agree with el.
but i still listen to michael jackson. remember technically mj has not ever been convicted...
Post a Comment