Consent
‘Weird Al’ Yankovic has come out with a song called “don’t download this song†addressing how wrong and immoral it is to violate international copyright law. True to form, the only way to get the song (for now at least) is to download it from the Internet. http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/
This is not the first time that he has linked himself to copyright law. There was quite a bit of controversy over the song “Amish Paradise†that parodied “Gangsta’s Paradise” by Coolio. Permission was secured (allegedly) from record label company Tommy Boy that released the Coolio song. However, permission wasn’t secured (allegedly) by Coolio himself. The difference between what the artist claims and what the record label representing the artist claims caused a major uproar.
Earlier this year the opposite problem happened. Since the incident over “Amish Paradiseâ€, Al has always made sure to speak with the artist directly before making any parody. Wanting to make a parody of James Blunts hit “You’re Beautifulâ€, Al secured permission from Blunt himself but was later blocked from releasing it by Blunts label Atlantic Records. Al instead release the song as a free download explaining “if James Blunt himself were objecting, I wouldn’t even offer my parody for free on my Web site. But since it’s a bunch of suits — who are actually going against their own artist’s wishes — I have absolutely no problem with it.”
Permission of an individual can conflict with permission of the group/system.
Something that just absolutely drives me up a wall with others I come into contact with in the BDSM community is this notion of permission being secured by the “record label†and not with the “artistâ€. This is the hardest thing in the world for me to combat because I cant make it understood that giving permission to an activity can be split this way.
Take for example, being called “sirâ€. Any time someone addresses me by a title I make it quite clear that I do not wish to be called such. It will happen from time to time that when I say this I get told that my own individual choices don’t matter in the slightest because I HAVE to be called “sir†whether I like it or not. The rationalization comes from “the record labels†saying that all dominants have to be called a title. (Even though I am a fetishist and not a dominant.) For some reason I am expected to consent to an activity because the community at large consents to it.
The real ridiculous instances of this have me portrayed as the villain who is trying to force others to conform to my standard against their will. After all, if a slave has been commanded by its master to address all other masters by “sirâ€, then both the slave has consented and the master has consented. Who am I to tell someone else that what they consent to in their relationship is wrong. The flaw in this, obviously, is that Im not telling others what they have permission to do in their own relationship. If a slave wants to call its own master “sir†thats find by me. If a slave wants to call others who are into the same protocol “sir†thats fine also. But if a slave wants to call ME “sirâ€, I would expect I would have at least some say in the decision.
I was once blackballed from a munch because of this misunderstand about who exactly is involved when securing consent. A new couple joins the munch and announces to everyone that the slave is only given permission to speak with other slaves. They are not to talk to or speak with any other masters. Since I am neither a master nor a slave, I tried asking clarification on if this person could speak to me or not. The self-appointed leader of this munch took me aside and told me that I was being disruptive and difficult. High protocol people had just as much a right to be welcomed into the group as anyone else. And by raising my question, I was shattering the high protocol environment of rules and order and structure that had attracted this couple to the munch. I was told I wasn’t welcomed back until I could start being more open minded.
Safe. Sane Consensual. But who’s consent matters more? Consent from the artist? Or consent from the record label who’s only concern is to its own high structure environment. Who’s consent matters more? My right to say no to an activity that I do not want to be included in? Or another’s right to treat me in a way that is in alignment with their lifestyle choice?