Singer's Ex-Boyfriend Demands Royalties For Inspiring Songs About Their Relationship & Breakup

from the entitlement-society dept

This is from a few weeks ago, but just getting around to it. The latest example of ridiculous entitlement in an age of people claiming "ownership" to all sorts of things they have no ownership over, is that the popular singer Adele says that her ex-boyfriend has been demanding a cut of the royalties from her massively successful debut album, 19, because he apparently "inspired" many of the songs on the album about how awful their relationship and breakup apparently were. She apparently told him to get lost, stating:
"Well, you made my life hell, so I lived it and now I deserve it."
Of course, it would be amusing to see this (nameless) guy try to make a publicity rights claim out of it, though I couldn't see it getting very far. Still, in this day and age, when people seem to think they have an intellectual property right over anything that tangentially relates to them, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually reached that stage.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Snore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

    Dumb pud brings dumb lawsuit = intellectual property is dumb.

    Thanks for clearing that up for us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Re:

    Strawman much?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Re:

    Lots of dumb puds bring lots of dumb lawsuits = intellectual property is fostering an entitlement mentality

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:26pm

    But if the boyfriend isn't given his fair share, what incentive will he have to be a jerk to his girlfriends in the future? Do you really want women to be happy Mike? That's despicable of you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    IP will eat itself

    Of course, it would be amusing to see this (nameless) guy try to make a publicity rights claim out of it, though I couldn't see it getting very far.

    Oh, that's droll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Re:

    It is exhausting reading the AC's mindless comments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Brian Schroth (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    When I consider that Adele is probably going to be very wealthy, I can't help feeling that this guy could have had it all, if he hadn't been such a jerk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Jake, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:39pm

    I think we just found a new analogy for defining chutzpah. One almost has to admire the man for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

    This was already on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me - Bluff the Listener a couple weeks ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re:

    You essentially reworded my statement but left the gist.

    Thing is, I was sarcastic and you're serious.

    You actually believe that the problem is IP rather than the the fact that the guy is simply a world class bonehead.

    That's through the looking glass, bro.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    hobo, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Re:

    ..and yet, if he hadn't been a jerk, she might not have been inspired enough to make a successful album. So he might still be with her, but without the money.

    Perhaps this was his plan all along, inspire money-making album, but he just didn't plan well enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Historian, May 25th, 2011 @ 12:52pm

    You oughta know, the Ex-boyfriend is going to swallow a jagged little pill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Of course, it would be amusing to see this (nameless) guy try to make a publicity rights claim out of it,...

    I kinda hope he does.

    Watching the internet community pounce all over this guy like a pride of lions on a wounded gazelle would be entertaining to say the least. Probably be better then the Judith Griggs/Cooks Source thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    entitlement

    It the growing sense of entitlement.

    More and more people feel they are just entitled to benefits, money, etc. A great personification of ones selfish nature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    hobo, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

    Re:

    Oh, cut-it-out. (insert hand gesture here.)

    How Dave Coulier could inspire anyone to write that is beyond me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

    sooo youre telling me this isnt an article in the onion?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    taoareyou (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    There have been puds ex's for a pretty long time. It's only now that IP has become so outrageous that they believe they have the right to make such laughable demands. They are not pointing out he is a pud, they are pointing out that this belief that we can somehow own and monetize our every idea and experience on the backs of others has caused the pud to think his demands are rational.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    that the problem is IP

    It is the problem. The belief that you can own an infinitely copyable and infinitely transferable idea is crazy.

    Abstract ideas (patents) and expressions (copyright) do not deserve monopoly protection from the government. Evidence shows that those protections are not necessary for the advancement of science or art, nor do they in practice compensate the actual artist or inventor. All they appear to do is create massive inefficient bureaucracies of middlemen and lawyers.

    Just because something has been done one way for (only) the past 200 years does not mean it must be done that way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's only now that IP has become so outrageous

    That doesn't make any sense. How exactly is IP itself any different now than 20 or 50 years ago?

    Masnick scours the internet looking for stories on idiotic IP lawsuits, and because you guys reside in his echo chamber, you think that it infers some sort of trend.

    It doesn't. People have always brought dumb lawsuits and always will.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    NullOp, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

    Bucks

    Well *I* demand money for having to be on the same planet with these two!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Re:

    Hahahaha I was also thinking Alanis has had it now...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Abstract ideas (patents) and expressions (copyright) do not deserve monopoly protection from the government. Evidence shows that those protections are not necessary for the advancement of science or art, nor do they in practice compensate the actual artist or inventor.

    It appears you like to state your opinions as facts, despite the evidence being nowhere remotely in your favor.

    If I could play by your rules, I could say that you're 350 pounds, wear broken glasses and live in your mom's basement.

    Self created reality is so awesome...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

    Re:

    thus giving him a story to write a book about....

    ignore him, it's the most destructive thing you can do to him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 25th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "How exactly is IP itself any different now than 20 or 50 years ago?"

    Um...

    Does this make it different?
    Or this?
    Or how about this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Raphael (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Reasons why you might be here trolling, in order of probability, and their outcomes:

    1. Your band sucks.
    OUTCOME: You console yourself briefly by picking fights with people on the internet while working a string of meaningless office jobs and bemoaning the 'poor taste' of record company scouts who refuse to sign you. You watch as a succession of your bandmates become marginally successful, failing to realize that the contracts get a little worse each time. Eventually, because [insert supreme being/natural process] has a sense of humor, one of your early songs gets stolen blatantly by a major label artist, but no one takes you seriously when you say it's yours.

    2. You're a record company scout/agent/marketroid.
    OUTCOME: You become increasingly convinced that your way of life is under threat by pirates and vow to prevent them from operating despite every other human on the planet telling you it's not possible. You cling for dear life to the particular configuration of shell companies and corporate governance structures that cuts your paycheck. Because of this, your job increasingly consists of explaining emerging technology to executives who still show the aftereffects of spending the entire 80s on coke. You end up playing Wormtongue to their disgraced Sauruman, feeding on the meager rents you can still collect for your 'property' from equally shell-shocked luddites. Eventually your bosses retire, leaving you with their entire portfolio and an odd sense of disorientation: It's music. It's good music. Why aren't people giving me money?

    3. You're being paid to troll.
    This seems unlikely, and I actually can't see an outcome. I just have questions: How much does it pay? Do they let you work from home? Do you have regular hours, or is it an on call situation? What do you tell your friends you do for a living? Do you download albums on Bittorrent? Do they ask that before they hire you? Who is 'they'? Do you have a quota? Do you ever write your own anticopyright articles to 'refute?' Do you enjoy it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Write a book!

    Hey, Jesse James is trying it out, though he was kinda recognizable before he married, and subsequently cheated on, Sandra Bullock, which gives him some extra leverage in the public conciousness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright extension act maybe. But that was only 20 years. Big whoop. The other two are just extending brick and mortar laws to cyberspace. The fundamental tenets of IP aren't any different.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When you throw facts in the face of a troll it makes them dizzy! =)

    At least now I have an idea of who the subject may have been for the first "moron" in a hurry test.

    How much of an idiot do you have to be to ask an asinine question like "How exactly is IP itself any different now than 20 or 50 years ago?"?

    Get back under your bridge AC' troll!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re:

    1) be a jackass
    2) inspire someone to write an album based on it
    3) ???
    4) PROFIT!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It appears you like to state your opinions as facts, despite the evidence being nowhere remotely in your favor."

    The evidence for IP being good for society is about as good as the evidence that 95+ year copy protection lengths are somehow good for society. There is no evidence, these laws were written by big corporations for big corporations.

    I can provide evidence (and there is plenty more evidence) that IP is bad.

    You still haven't, and can't, provide one iota of evidence to support your position. It doesn't exist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Self created reality is so awesome..."

    Indeed, when big corporations make the self created reality that their position isn't delusional and expect anyone to take them seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 25th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The fundamental tenets of IP aren't any different."

    To pretend that the so-called tenets of IP could actually remain fundamentally the same when applied in a completely different medium with completely different paradigms, subject to a completely different reality, is why you'll think there's nothing wrong with IP today.

    The DMCA applied rules for copy protection that didn't exist in the analog world. You could legally back up a VHS tape, even if there was a manufacturer designed element that attempted to prevent copying. The DMCA introduced anti-circumvention rules, taking the right to circumvent the protections on your own purchases away from consumers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Snore. Like the internet changed anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 3:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    only 20 years. Big whoop

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Amazing... Do you get a weekly newspaper delivered by horse or something? Do you have any idea the speed at which information flows nowadays? 20 years is a HUGE whoop in terms of media and information. I think this explains why your perspective on this stuff is so out of whack: you are a time traveller from the 1870s.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You essentially reworded my statement but left the gist.

    Thing is, I was sarcastic and you're serious.


    Am I supposed to congratulate you on reading and understanding what I wrote and its intended meaning?

    Oh wait, you are a Techdirt troll, so that actually is kind of impressive. Congratulations! Keep it up and soon enough you'll graduate from reading comprehension to logic and reason, and then one day if you're lucky, average intelligence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 4:33pm

    ... *shakes head slowly*

    "The other two are just extending brick and mortar laws to cyberspace"

    It does not take a genius to figure out the architecture of the real world don't apply in cyberspace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2011 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So what?

    That doesn't change what is considered IP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The nature of "what is considered IP" - as in which kinds of works qualify for which kinds of protections - has changed plenty.... Hell, copyright was once limited to books, maps and charts.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 25th, 2011 @ 5:12pm

    Re:

    He might have a jerk right which has been infringed upon. Imaginary property rights are serious business and we need to respect them otherwise these jerks will cease to create new jerkdoms and then where will we all be without all these jerks around ..... errr never mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 25th, 2011 @ 5:21pm

    Rather than being a whiny little douche, why doesn't he go write his own songs about the bad relationship, cash in and shut the hell up ... because he lacks the talent I would guess and therefore is not entitled to his claims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

    Who's next?

    I suppose next we'll hear from Eminem's ex-wife, Kim, who will claim that because she (allegedly from Em's viewpoint) made his life such complete hell that he had to (allegedly) kill her and put her in the trunk of a car.

    Her claim for damages should be amazing, considering she directly inspired a great many tracks on Eminem's albums, not to mention her untimely death during the runtime of his debut album. This would mean a Wrongful Death suit on top of any claims to royalties for inspiring a homicide, a song about the homicide and a third song about how the homicide wasn't real but this other guy thought it was and killed his girlfriend and they both (Em/Stan) got taken in by an urban legend about a Phil Collins' tune, so the estate of Phil Collins may also be in legal hot water.

    (Note: If Phil Collins is still alive, I offer my sincerest apologies to both him and his fans.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), May 25th, 2011 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Only" 20, my ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Tom, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:49am

    So this guy is suing so that it can be made public how he is the guy who made a popular singer's "life hell"? Way to go, man! You're living up to the lyrics!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 1:57am

    In a related development

    The estate of Adolf Hitler is suing Hollywood for royalties on all those WW2 movies that would never have been possible without him.

    Expect Bin Laden's family to ask for a cut of the royalties from the (inevitable) movie about his demise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:11am

    Re: In a related development

    The hilter youtube videos are hilarious

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Corporations have changed what they consider IP in the last 50 years. It used to just be main works like books and movies and trademarks for products and patents on useful inventions.

    Now T-Mobile thinks it owns the color magenta. Facebook thinks it owns any domain name with "face" or "book" in it. Starbucks thinks it owns green circle logos. Apple thinks it owns anything its ever done, even if there is prior art.

    If you think nothing has changed, you haven't been paying attention or else you're head is stuck in the 20th Century (or somewhere else) intentionally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Andrew F (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Who's next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    get him back forever, Aug 14th, 2011 @ 1:32am

    It's so hilarious

    simply hilarious...LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Nick, Nov 10th, 2011 @ 3:56pm

    Like your post

    Hello I really like your post and I think that it's cool. I want to use it in my article. Is it possible? Of course, I will write a source.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Marina, Nov 10th, 2011 @ 3:59pm

    Useful

    Extremely useful thank you, I'm sure your trusty audience would definitely want a great deal more items like this maintain the excellent work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This