If you heard a Smashing Pumpkins song advertising a delicious bottle of refreshing Pepsi, what would you do?

Chances are you'd either a) go and buy a thirst-quenching bottle of deliciously refreshing Pepsi right away or b) kick the television over, stamp on it and then slash your belly because you drank some Pepsi once six years ago and you don't want to be seen to be endorsing the Smashing Pumpkins in even the slightest way.

But not if you're Billy Corgan, lead singer of the Smashing Pumpkins. If you're Billy Corgan and you hear a Smashing Pumpkins song advertising Pepsi, you sue your old record label and then get all stroppy and self-important and bitch about everything for the millionth time of your life.

Say what you like about the Smashing Pumpkins, but they always provoke a reaction – even if that reaction involves burning your Wii the instant someone online puts Cherub Rock on their Guitar Hero III setlist before it gets infected, or jabbing knitting needles in your ear because you can't stand the way that Billy Corgan sounds like a feeble witch when he sings.

Sadly, the reaction of former Smashing Pumpkins record label Virgin when it hears a Smashing Pumpkin song is "Hey, this would sound awesome advertising an ice-cold glass of mouthwatering cool buzzin' fast livin' ever givin' Pepsi Cola!" Which is probably the scientific opposite of what Billy Corgan wanted it to think, especially since Virgin went ahead and used the band's name, image and music for a Pepsi/Amazon promotion anyway.

Angered that people other than teenagers who think they have more problems in their lives than they actually do might be hearing their alternative rock whiny pap, Billy Corgan sued Virgin for breach of contract in the name of the Smashing Pumpkins. And now, as Reuters reports, Corgan has decided to make a statement about why Virgin is a tub or arses and he is a bald-headed Goliath hell-bent on sticking it to the man:

Corgan told Billboard.com that… the Pepsi/Amazon.com promotion "crosses the Rubicon. You're going to see more of this playing fast and loose with the rules, hoping they don't get caught. At face value, it's not a huge deal. But in terms of precedent, it is, because there will be much more of this coming." The problem is that according to the contract the Pumpkins renegotiated with Virgin in the late '90s, both parties are partners on the catalog. "We've made offers to buy it all," he said. "Look, you have no interest. Let us just buy it. But they won't put a number on it. They've atrophied the catalog down so low that they probably hope we'll crawl back and ask for cash."

Ah, so that's the reason – the Smashing Pumpkins sold out to Virgin a decade ago and don't like it because Virgin's doing stuff that it seems to be perfectly entitled to do. That's got to sting.

But, on the other hand, in the ever-changing music industry, perhaps Billy Corgan is right to want to set a precedent in case more labels want to start making up for falling profits by unethically licensing songs to adverts without the artists' permission. We'd certainly be OK if Billy Corgan won his lawsuit, but only because we'd be certain that no bloody Smashing Pumpkins music would ambush our ears in the middle of Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway.

Plus, if Billy loses the lawsuit, at least he gave it a shot. And at least no adverts will want to use any of his solo stuff. Not unless companies want their product to be associated with people being mildly irritated and a bit nauseous.

Read more:

Smashing Pumpkins lawsuit latest step in feud – Reuters