Don't take this wrong, but lighten up! Parody, or satire, of songs, literature, politics, etc etc is a very old and valid and respected form of expression. Like anything else, some is good, some not, some is mean-spirited, some not. Much of it is simply for a laugh. When Homer and Jethro were at their peak, writers and performers often expressed delight over H&J's parodies of their songs. When the issues are serious, such as in politics or religion, that is when people tend to get their feelings hurt over the whole idea of parody (not referring to you here), but then they are highly entertained when somebody else's parody matches their own leanings. I don't know if you remember, shortly after Reagan was elected, there were cries from politicians, right-wing activists and other geniuses that the Doonesbury cartoon strip should be either eliminated or moved to the editorial page. Never were such words heard when the same comic strip was parodying much of what the Carter administration was saying and doing. Parody and its partner satire sometimes help us see another side of the subject at hand, the same way a thoughtful editorial essay might. Of course if it is merely mean-spirited bashing, that's another story, but it sometimes takes great care and open-mindedness to determine which is which. As far as the copyright laws are concerned in the US, as long as the parody writer, performer, producer et al pay the original owner of the material for the part that they use (the music, for example), there is no law broken and no cause of civil action given. (Get confimation on this from experts.) I think to limit parody/satire in general would be a serious and unnecessary first amendment violation.

Chet W.