Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style

from the selling-the-scarcity dept

A couple of months back, Mike wrote about how Psy’s relaxed attitude to people infringing on his copyright helped turn Gangnam Style into one of the most successful cultural phenomena in recent years, and that includes becoming the most-viewed video on YouTube ever.

Ah yes, the maximalists will retort, this free-and-easy, laid-back approach is all very nice, but it doesn’t put food on his table, does it? If you want to make a living from this stuff, you’ve got to enforce copyright to stop all those freeloaders ruining your business. Well, maybe not:

With one song, 34-year-old Park Jae-sang — better known as PSY — is set to become a millionaire from YouTube ads and iTunes downloads, underlining a shift in how money is being made in the music business. An even bigger dollop of cash will come from TV commercials.

From just those sources, PSY and his camp will rake in at least $8.1 million this year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of publicly available information and industry estimates.

The AP story quoted above goes on to give a detailed breakdown of where that money comes from. Interestingly, it’s mostly from things not directly connected with either his music or video:

It is television commercials that are the big money spinner for the most successful of South Korea’s K-pop stars. PSY has been popping up in TV commercials in South Korea for top brands such as Samsung Electronics and mobile carrier LG Uplus.

Chung Yu-seok, an analyst at Kyobo Securities, estimates PSY’s commercial deals would amount to 5 billion won ($4.6 million) this year.

This is yet another great example of how artists can give away copies of their music and videos to build their reputations and then earn significant sums by selling associated scarcities — in this case, appearances in TV commercials. Now, not every musician may want to take that route, but there are plenty of other ways of exploiting global successes like Gangnam Style — none of which requires copyright to be enforced.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
121 Comments
fogbugzd (profile) says:

I was talking to the instructor of a digital animation course that will be running this spring. He was planning on having the students do an animation to a music video, but it occurred to him that he might run into copyright problems. I told him he might get by with a fair use defense, but that anything his class posted would probably get hit with DCMA takedown notices.

In the end I recommended Gangnam Style or perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayMeza487M because of their lack of interest in copyright over-enforcement. I just hope that policy continues to hold through next semester!

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“but it occurred to him that he might run into copyright problems”

Considering the class being taught, it may not be so bad that the students have these problems while still in school – where they can get some help understanding how to combat improper takedowns and threatening letters.

Of course, they may need to look into their mandatory self-destructing eBooks from the previous semester, so it could be that they are out of luck anyway.

JTR says:

Re: Re:

“He was planning on having the students do an animation to a music video, but it occurred to him that he might run into copyright problems. I told him he might get by with a fair use defense, but that anything his class posted would probably get hit with DCMA takedown notices.”

This a pretty standard type of exercise in a creative arts course.

Why put them on YouTube? Post them on Vimeo. Or on the school’s internal network – it’s not necessary to publish the results, is it?

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And how would he be endorsing it? Please explain.

This is about the use of his music – not his personality specifically endorsing anything. Yes, he can make very good money for endorsing a product but if they were only to use his music, as it is, without any further action required by him (such as sitting for a commercial and recording any dialog or additional tracks), then what is his direct compensation?

I’m not saying he cannot gain additional wealth through indirect compensation (such as when your music is heard and people buy your CD or see you perform etc.).

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“And how would he be endorsing it? Please explain.

This is about the use of his music – not his personality specifically endorsing anything.”

So what are you saying? In this case, he is free to both use his song/persona in a CM while retaining the copyright on his music …without resorting to suing all his fans. He can have his cake and eat it.

Do you have tunnel vision, seeing copyright ownership solely as a tool for litigation and shutting down websites?

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Do you have tunnel vision, seeing copyright ownership solely as a tool for litigation and shutting down websites?”

Huh?

Don’t know where you got that from, buddy.

I just don’t think copyright in and of itself is an evil thing that needs to be abolished. I think what many people do with it is ridiculous (such as suing everything that moves just because it looked at a picture they took and didn’t pay them etc.).

I do think that content creators should be rewarded and I do think that copyright is supposed to be a mechanism to help facilitate that, but I certainly don’t think that just because you create something means you have or should have absolute control over it in every way imaginable.

I’m just not on either of the bandwagons that seem to be present here around copyright (the ‘it must go’ or ‘it must be strictly enforced’ camps).

IronM@sk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I think you misread the article. It wasn’t talking about using his music in TV commercials. It was talking about him appearing in TV commercials. You know, all the things the “artists” get upset about having to do to make money, rather than just making one hit and sitting back and letting the money roll in.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...

Alright, I’ve just got to know, what part of copyright is required for him to profit from being in TV commercials?

Keep in mind the reason he’s getting paid for his appearance in a commercial is because he is famous and well known, something that has nothing to do copyright.

Urugi Ka says:

Re: Re: Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...

Commercials generally have 2 fees paid to the performer, the actual day rate for being on set and shooting it, and then the usage fee – which is paid for use of the footage/advert (this is usually not individual instances but per campaigns… eg there’d be an amount that he’ll be paid for its 3 months on TV station X in S. Korea, then the campaign is expanded to the US on 3 networks for 3 months and he’s paid again)

I’m not a legal expert, but this seems to be a sort of Copyright, right?

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re:

>>Not seeing how this has anything to do with copyright infringement.

Bingo! You got the point of the article, although I don’t think you understand what the article is saying at all. The fact that Psy is making millions from his video really does have nothing to do with copyright.

Let me back up and explain because I think you have fallen into the trap of believing that copyright is necessary to make money from music.

The article is pointing out that Psy made a lot of money by not filing a ton of DCMA notices or being a copyright bully. In fact, one of the secrets of his success seems to be that he encouraged people to copy, remix, adapt, and parody his work.

The recording industry fell into the trap of thinking that copyright was needed in order to make money from music. The RIAA companies would probably be making a lot more money today if they had not been so heavily invested in the idea that making money required draconian enforcement of copyright. They still waste a lot of political capital and economic resources trying to preserve this way of thinking.

Most of the regulars here at TD have absolutely no problem with people monetizing their work and making money from it. We just don’t think that being a copyright bully is always necessary.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Directly or indirectly? Indirectly he got paid millions for all those remixes…

Directly perhaps not very much. The question is, would he have made more if those remixes had never been made?

The opinion here, and this is something that is pretty much impossible to empirically prove is that no he would not have made as much.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is another mistake made by too many companies that rely on copyright. They often think that they have to make money off of every single use of their product. Psy’s success is in large part because he connected with fans. His fans directly support him by buying his products, going to concerts, and spreading the word about Psy. As other posters note, he does not worry about collecting a cut of every use, but as a result he does collect more money on the things that he is selling.

Companies that try to shut down fan-art are cutting their own throats. They are alienating their own fans and ignoring some of the best publicity they could possibly have. Plus they spend money and corporate resources trying to track down their most loyal fans and turning them into ex-fans.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There were other things, from a ‘gangam style’ restaurant, to re-mixes and other adaptations that would normally be magnets for people with copyrights to be issuing takedowns left and right. PSY has done nothing of the sort and has encouraged it. As a result, people who are normally gunshy over possible copyright know that doing something cool with Gangam Style won’t get them in any trouble… thus awareness of his music spreads MUCH faster than it would have otherwise.

Because it is so wide-spread and generally seen as a ‘good guy’ by the public (who’s growing increasingly weary of copyright trolls) so advertisers want him.

Anonymous Coward says:

He is successful, because he markets his popularity, not his music. He used his music as as a means to gain popularity.

Basically, *He* is the product, not the music, the music is just the advertisement of the real product.

And that is what music is nowadays for the artists. free ads, that foster their popularity and fanbase, letting them make money on concerts, merchandise and whatever they can think of *around* themselves and the music they play. Getting income directly from the music is mostly just icing on the cake now.

And nobody needs copyright for that, unless you invent a perfect cloning machine

Cory of PC (profile) says:

Huh. So I wonder if I ever do make it in the entertainment world and sell my first book, I should take PSY’s style and be lax on my infringement enforcement and let people do whatever they want. Then again, I was considering the idea ever since of learning of this site and the different viewpoints of copyright, and with me being a fan-fiction writer that wants to be noticed.

And this is coming from someone who never heard or seen this person’s hit video (until I saw a review of it). God I hate being sheltered sometimes…

out_of_the_blue says:

And he wants to get more by weaseling out!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9731576/Psy-apologies-for-rapping-about-killing-US-soldiers.html

How’s that news? Money, money, money! You all want to either get rich quick or absolve yourselves of stealing other people’s work, so you keep buying Mike’s snake oil notions.

But yet again, tell us HOW to get noticed and self-promote on teh internets. This is just another anomaly, CAN’T be applied to your notions. You need a formula. So long as you claim this is relevant, I want to know your everyday formula for succeeding — with or without copyright!

Dang, guys, all you do is keep repeating: “Anomaly x means Mike is right!”

RD says:

Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!

“But yet again, tell us HOW to get noticed and self-promote on teh internets. This is just another anomaly, CAN’T be applied to your notions. You need a formula. So long as you claim this is relevant, I want to know your everyday formula for succeeding — with or without copyright!”

And this right here proves our suspicions all along – ootb is a FAILED ARTIST who couldnt/didnt make it and now wants the world to pay for his lack of talent.

Cory of PC (profile) says:

Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!

You do realize that for self-promotion, the name says it all: you yourself are the one in charge of your own promotion. So there’s no real perfect way of self-promotion, just take this advice:

DO. IT. YOURSELF!

And it can’t be called “self-promoting” if you’re taking someone else’s method.

… wait.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!

By your logic ALL acts that signed and became popular with the labels in the day were ‘anomalies’… as they were FAR from the ‘normal’ musician of the time…

What every good snake oil salesman needs is a shining star who is an example of what his ‘snake oil’ will do for you…
How many musicians would have signed with labels without seeing those anomalies they had created?

I’ll pretend that you aren’t the ‘weasle’ here and that you just really don’t understand how the industry was built by creating anomalies that the rest of the ‘lowly populace’ could dream of becoming some day…

explicit coward (profile) says:

Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!

“You all want to either get rich quick”

Don’t jump to conclusions by using yourself as referential example…

“absolve yourselves of stealing other people’s work”

No absolution needed for a crime not commited.

“You need a formula”

Nope, we don’t. Industry does – where you need to streamline your production. But I doubt that nowadays we need an industrial organisation to spread arts.

And hey, if I had THE formula, I wouldn’t tell you – you might STEAL it, you THIEF!

Elder-Geek (profile) says:

Easy Money

What is even better for him is that he is NOT fighting the record company. No dishonest accounting, no promo costs, etc and everything else they pull.

His song was able to become a hit, with no record company controling it and preventing “infringing uses” and he is able profit from it, instead of some record company “owning” most of his rights.

Marc John Randazza (profile) says:

Misleading Premise

He didn’t make $8.1 million by ignoring copyright infringements. He made $8.1 million while or despite ignoring infringements.

But, what is important here is that he made that choice. And, perhaps it shows the wisdom of making that choice. On the other hand, he’s also lost a lot of the ability to control the use of his work – and he may not care about that. But, he ought to have the right to make that his choice.

If other musicians take the opposite approach, we very well may find that the free market shows us the right way to do this.

But, lets remember that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” If we examine every musician (or a statistically significant sampling of musicians) and try and figure out whether just giving the music away is a smarter business move, or if PSY is a statistical outlier, we might come to a different answer. (Maybe not, but you have to do the work — don’t just be lazy and say “look! guy ignores copyright, gets money! The end!)

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Misleading Premise

You might be missing the forest for the trees here.

More than anything, I’d say this whole ‘Psy makes boatloads of money and gets insanely famous by ignoring copyright’ is a great example, and direct refutation, of the claim that copyright is so important due to it being the only way for an artist to make money in an environment where copying is so easy.

Now, copyright may be important for other reasons, but the idea that it’s needed for an artist to make money off of their works doesn’t exactly hold up under scrutiny, as most of the time, if they aren’t making money, it’s due to some other reason(lack of availability, insane pricing, and horrible restrictions placed upon the buyer being probably the main three), with copyright infringement/piracy being a symptom of the problem, not the root cause.

Also, to counter your ‘shows us the right way to do this’ line, as has been stated over and over on this site, there is no one right way. What works for one artist may be disastrous for another, and vice versa. What’s important is focusing on the core ideas of ‘make people want to buy from you/give you money’ and ‘make it easy and convenient for them to do so’. How an artist goes about this differs between person to person, and again, what works for one might not work for another, meaning there is no ‘magic pill/technique’ for success.

Marc John Randazza (profile) says:

Re: Re: Misleading Premise

I can’t disagree with your conclusion – yes, there is no magic pill, and what works for one might not work for another. Let the artists make the decision to abandon their rights or not. If they do, and it works for one, maybe it works for 10, and maybe it works for so many that the market changes.

Milton Freewater says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Misleading Premise

“Let the artists make the decision to abandon their rights or not.

And perhaps we can leave off the emotionally charged language such as “abandon their rights”.”

It’s not just emotionally charged, it’s a lie. This is a discussion about rightsholders asserting new rights, not giving up old ones. Psy didn’t abandon anything. He (and his team) chose not to make certain claims and they directly benefited.

Person says:

Re: Misleading Premise

No, no. He made $8.1 million BY ignoring copyright infringement because people didn’t hesitate to share and play his song and add their own twist onto it. Had he not ignored copyright infringements and cracked down on everyone who used his song without permission, people would have stopped. No one would have continued sharing it. It’s popularity would have been much much smaller.

Popularity= money
Ignoring copyright infringements= Popularity

Justin G. says:

Re: Misleading Premise

Very well said. Perhaps PSY could have made twice as much by enforcing copyright. Nobody knows for sure. At the end of the day, let the artist choose how he/she wishes to enforce his/her RIGHTS. This limited monopoly is in the Constitution. I love people who believe they DESERVE free music. There are plenty of artists who will give out their music for free…listen to theirs. Don’t cry about others who enforce their copyrights. Boycott them all you want…if they are good enough, people will buy their music. Stop talking shit about copyright law; talk shit about the artists who enforce their rights, to your disliking.

PuqTheWorst says:

Re: Re: Misleading Premise

You just took a minute writing that, and you are completly right. The shitheads above us took 1 hour just to fight. (mother of god that rhymed!) But that is completly up to the music creator to put on copyright on the song. Its exactly like i would make a new soft drink. I ofcourse put a trademark and a copyright sign on it so no one can copy it and sell it. Now i see music production like 2 cans. The first one is filled with coke, and the second one is filled with pepsi. The coke bottle is what started it all, and is the creator of the “song” and pepsi is the remix/parody. Now pepsi and coke isnt the same drink, and coke doesnt sue them since it is almost completly different, and so should the music production work too, now dont get me wrong, but what i mean is that the companies shouldnt sue because they took the song beats and took other lyrics.

out_of_the_blue says:

How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

“Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style” — Glancing at the lead again caused me to laugh at the TOTALLY wacky assertions on Techdirt! What a Freudian slip! So Mike and his fanboy-trolls actually believe it’s the ignoring and not the exposure that’s important! This explains much.

silverscarcat says:

Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

I can answer your question…

By ignoring the way people were making parodies of it, and not claiming copyright infringement, it’s become quite popular to the point of annoying.

Thus, people who have no idea what this is, goes to look for the original, and if they like it, they give money.

Course, if you weren’t a complete copyright apologist, you’d know that.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

And how much exposure would he have gotten had he not ignored the copyright angle, and instead squashed any and all infringing mashups/remixes of his work?

Had he only released his own video/song, and then demanded that no-one do anything with it other than watch/listen, odds are good he’d have had his 15-minutes of fame(if that), and then faded from the public’s view quickly. By having so many people do mashups/remixes of the original, more and more people were made aware of the original, and thereby him, increasing his fame.

Marc John Randazza (profile) says:

Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

Perhaps, but that is because the song fucking sucks.

The Macarena didn’t ignore copyright, and it was just as wildly successful and annoying.

Gangam Style exploded because most of the market is a bunch of idiots who will eat up auditory junk food like it is a tootsie roll handed out on Southwest Airlines.

I’m reasonably certain that if Alex Chilton’s estate released all of his works to the public domain, that we wouldn’t have an explosion of Alex Chilton’s popularity. You’d just have a few less people buying it on iTunes.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

The Macarena didn’t ignore copyright, and it was just as wildly successful and annoying.

Were people trying to make mashups and remixes and getting sued for infringement?

Gangam Style exploded because most of the market is a bunch of idiots who will eat up auditory junk food like it is a tootsie roll handed out on Southwest Airlines.

I’m reasonably certain that if Alex Chilton’s estate released all of his works to the public domain, that we wouldn’t have an explosion of Alex Chilton’s popularity. You’d just have a few less people buying it on iTunes.

I’m trying to figure out how this relates to the idea of making money without using copyright. Are you saying this only works for “bad” music? And that “good” music requires copyright to make money? Or something else?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

Bravo OOTB, you always got to go one better. Not content with merely failing to RTFA, you failed to even read the headline.
Otherwise, you might have spotted the error for yourself.

Don’t even try to pretend you were ninja’d – Marc John Randazza’s post is a full half hour before yours.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?

“So Mike and his fanboy-trolls”

I’m not a troll (unlike a certain someone), but I do consider myself a fan of Mike Masnick. He’s earned my admiration and respect, as well as that of hundreds to thousands of other people. He writes multiple articles a day, on the happenings in the tech world and anything relating to it, while also helping develop new ideas for business. Mike, I take my hat off for you. Congratu-well-done.

What have you done, hasn’t_got_a_clue? Unlike you, Mike has earned his fanboys. You haven’t. You’ve done nothing at all but spew vitriol and garbage here since day one. Not once have I seen a single comment from you that contained a logical thought, or something that couldn’t be easily refuted by us on the opposite side of the fence with just a second’s thought.

TaviRider says:

Inaccurate article: It's not up to the artist

Psy may not be interested in pursuing copyright violations, but it’s not his call. As soon as he signs with a major publishing house, they call the shots. In fact, this is exactly what happened: Popular YouTuber “CaptainSparklez” made a Gangnam Style parody called “Minecraft Style”. It used to be available here but it got taken down by Sony and/or Universal. CaptainSparklez posted this video explaining the takedown.

Ben S (profile) says:

Re: Inaccurate article: It's not up to the artist

Interesting fact, he’s not signed onto either of them. Here’s his list of record labels internationally: Bidman, LNLT Entertainment, YG Entertainment, YGEX, Avex Trax, Republic, and Schoolboy. Unless one of those is an alias used by Universal or Sony (I’m not aware of that being the case) then they don’t have authority to claim copyright. Further more, he became incredibly popular before signing on to some of these, so he may have been able to negotiate a contract in which he keeps his own copyright, and the label’s just have to settle for a license to sell his work.

HS says:

a different point of view

Good argument in favor of DRM-free digital music.. however there is a different point of view to consider. A musician who trains for years to hone his skills cannot hope to get paid enough for his work… anymore than what a music teacher makes teaching kids in school. But if you are willing to be a celebrity, accept the modern materialism/consumerism laced world and participate by peddling more of the unwanted stuff to impressionable masses, you will be a great commercial success and quoted as a role model for others to emulate! Speaks of the times we live in!

Cliff Kuehn says:

I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...

perhaps you also refer to the vast majority of writers, musician’s, independent cinematographers who depend on copyrights to secure a living wage. While I agree current copyright laws are a bit ridiculous, likewise, no copyright laws would also be ridiculous.

It’s great that some are highly creative and can get by without copyright laws, but it is overly idealistic to think that copyright law has no place in society, and that all the artists out there will just magically extract a living wage from their work without any protection in their labour.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...

Copyright has very little to do with artistic success. Only one thing determines success, gaining enough paying fans, and this is down to the quality of the work and whether it is discovered by the people with which it resonates. Also, unless self published, their is overcoming the hurdle of finding a publisher.
A brilliant piece of work will earn no money if it languishes in obscurity. For new creative people in particular allowing a work to circulate on the net for free is a way of becoming known.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...

It’s great that some are highly creative and can get by without copyright laws, but it is overly idealistic to think that copyright law has no place in society, and that all the artists out there will just magically extract a living wage from their work without any protection in their labour.

You seem to be under the impression that the purpose of copyright law is to make sure artists can make money. It is not. The purpose (in the US anyway) is to make sure artists create. If copyright is not necessary to get artists to create, then it has no place in our society.

Lorne Marr (user link) says:

Re: Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...

This.

Are you people so naive to think that the copyright law exists for protecting the artist’s interests? Maybe when it was first introduced, yes, maybe, but certainly not now.

Remember the lawsuit against the little girl in Finland for downloading one album? That’s the result of copyright enforcement, not artist motivation.

Richard92 says:

The article seems to imply that the sharing made the success . as a matter of fact the most viewed video is the official one . good for him it didn’t get split in multiple semi succesful videos . He made the ads because the single was successful ( 8 millions LEGAL downloads,N?1 in a lot of countries on iTunes) not because he didn’t file DMCAs .
On top of that , taking the phenomenon of the year and the historically most viewed video on youtube ( a very rare event) as a guideline for everyone else is a bit of a stretch . Beyonce just signed a 50 millions dollars deal with Pepsi, is it because she didn’t file DMCAs?

Notso Commonsense (user link) says:

So Copyright is dead?

Ok novelty “viral” hits like this can benefit from increased exposure over direct revenue by turning a blind-eye to copyright infringements – but the vast majority of serious musicians are never gonna get asked to do tv commercials whether or not they want to do them.

And lets just assume we scrap these archaic copyright laws for good – why would youtube pay Psy his share of the advertising revenue? Why would Itunes pay him his cut of sales either? After all Music is an intangible freely distributable commodity whilst Youtube/Apple have electricity and server bills to pay.

For that matter, if Samsung, LG etc want him in an advert why not just use clips from his video rather than pay him a ton of money?

I like a dodgy download as much as the next man, but lets not pretend that the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: So Copyright is dead?

Ok novelty “viral” hits like this can benefit from increased exposure over direct revenue by turning a blind-eye to copyright infringements – but the vast majority of serious musicians are never gonna get asked to do tv commercials whether or not they want to do them.

This is called Masnick’s Law. In the face of any non-major-label musical success, somebody will say “Sure, this can work for X, but it will never work for Y.” In the next story someone will say “Yeah this works for serious niche musicians, but the stuff that’s really popular now, the novelty hits, it won’t work for them.” It’s sort of a perfect solution fallacy, because nobody is claiming any solution will work for everyone.

And lets just assume we scrap these archaic copyright laws for good – why would youtube pay Psy his share of the advertising revenue?

Perhaps if people know YouTube pays artists, and say Vimeo doesn’t, they’ll go to YT rather than Vimeo. People like supporting artists that they like. Or perhaps Youtube doesn’t pay because of copyright, I haven’t heard any statement on them about it.


For that matter, if Samsung, LG etc want him in an advert why not just use clips from his video rather than pay him a ton of money?

Because then he isn’t saying “I love my LG phone”.


I like a dodgy download as much as the next man, but lets not pretend that the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians.

And let’s not pretend anyone said it is.

Notso Commonsense (user link) says:

Re: Re: So Copyright is dead?

>somebody will say “Sure, this can work for X, but it will never work for Y.

Because it’s true. Psy became popular because his video went viral and people did parodies of it – that wouldn’t work for anything other than comedic novelty songs.

>Or perhaps Youtube doesn’t pay because of copyright

Youtube have a system called “Content-Match” – which identifies copyrighted work – even if it’s a live performance or a parody. The rights holder gets the option of blocking the video, keeping an eye on the stats or making money off the advertising revenue. Psy like many artists has taken the 3rd option.

I’ve uploaded dozens of live performances of bands which have been content matched and the rights holder has always chosen to monetize rather than block/take down so what Psy is doing is nothing new.

>And let’s not pretend anyone said it is.

“Now, not every musician may want to take that route”

sounds to me like the article is suggesting that it’s an option artists are choosing not to take rather than it simply not being feasible.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So Copyright is dead?

Because it’s true.

And it completely misses the point. There are many business models; this is not held out as the one that everyone should use.

Youtube have a system called “Content-Match” – which identifies copyrighted work

It doesn’t use copyright to do so.

sounds to me like the article is suggesting that it’s an option artists are choosing not to take rather than it simply not being feasible.

Point to where someone said “the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians.”

Gregg says:

Many companies forget

Many companies forget some of the most important rules in Marketing.

– Free publicity is almost always good, even if it’s bad publicity (Even for BP). People will remember your name.

– Arch-type product that names it’s own niche. Look at photocopying. Everyone refereed to photocopying as Xeroxing. Why sue peoplebusinesses for using the products IP when they are spreading and hard coding your market product into the public’s brain. You can’t buy that, it can only be earned!

– Give the customer what they want and they will come back for more. The number one golden rule!

Legislating your business model is not only wrong, it’s anti-competitive. I am surprised that Hollywood hasn’t been charged for this yet!

uhhh says:

Yeah, but Mike...

…. he wasnt exactly well known in the world before this. as far as the us/canada/other random places that arent keeping a very close eye on south korea, he was just a random dude that posted a youtube vid.

so basically if you could find some random person that posted a song as catchy as gangnam style next year, and got lucky enough to get it viral, this entire string would repeat regardless of the popularity of the maker… you dont have to be popular to start it… it makes you popular

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
16:10 David Braben, Once Angry At Used Games, Now A New Business Model Embracer (33)
18:40 Artists Embracing, Rather Than Fighting, BitTorrent Seeing Amazing Results (10)
15:41 Vodo's Big Brother Bundle Shows How Bundles Can Improve The 'Pay What You Want' Concept (12)
23:06 Price Elasticity Can Work: Dropping Ebook Price To $1 Catapulted Year-Old Book Onto NYT Best Seller List (58)
16:03 The Good And Bad In Chaotic eBook Pricing (35)
05:18 Game Creator Finds That Knockoffs Can't Match His Awesome Game (33)
23:09 The Value Of Kickstarter: Connecting With Fans On-The-Fly (18)
10:02 Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade (101)
23:54 Cool New Platform For Supporting Artists: Patreon, From Jack Conte (23)
05:46 A New Hope: How Going Free To Play Brought Redemption To Star Wars MMO (48)
11:16 There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter (105)
06:00 When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working (55)
03:14 Hitchhiker's Fan-Site Started By Douglas Adams Shows Why Authors Shouldn't Panic Over Derivative Works (27)
09:21 Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup (54)
07:19 How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background (55)
13:30 Deftones Guitarist: People Who Download Our Music Are Fans, They're Welcome To Do So (29)
13:10 Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed (29)
03:45 Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print & Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself (43)
11:53 Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube (52)
00:09 Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero (42)
20:13 Flattr Makes It Easier Than Ever To Support Content Creators Just By Favoriting Tweets (61)
16:03 Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career (21)
19:39 Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust (131)
16:03 Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary (89)
13:41 It's Fine For The Rich & Famous To Use Kickstarter; Bjork's Project Failed Because It Was Lame (20)
17:34 Connecting With Fans In Unique Ways: Band Sets Up Treasure Hunt To Find Fan-Submitted Sounds In New Album (10)
07:27 Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts (131)
20:00 Skateboard Legend Stacy Peralta Demonstrates His Latest Trick: Cashing In By Going Direct-To-Fan (13)
23:58 Wallet Maker Shows Everyone How To Make Their Own Awesome Wallet (16)
11:27 $274 Million Raised Via Kickstarter In 2012 (8)
More arrow