Songwriter Claims He Was Exploited By Google... But A Few Seconds Of Logical Thinking Disproves That

from the ok,-let's-work-this-through dept

A bunch of folks have sent in the latest PR attempt by some musicians in the recording industry to force Google to pay unsustainable rates to keep their music on YouTube. Pete Waterman, who apparently co-wrote the Rick Astley "Rick Roll" song Never Gonna Give You Up has come out saying that Google "exploited" him, because he earned a grand total of £11 last year, even while the video was a hit on YouTube.

There are probably more details here, because no one actually says how much Google paid overall. For example, part of the problem may simply be the deal that Waterman himself signed concerning his royalties. But, more to the point, it's not Google that's doing any exploiting at all. Here's the simple logic process to run through (which Waterman and all the folks supporting this PR stunt failed to do):
  • How much attention did Waterman's song get last year thanks to YouTube?
  • Fine, take away YouTube. How much attention would Waterman and his song have received last year
Yup. No one would be talking about Waterman or his song at all in the absence of YouTube and the rickrolling phenomenon. The only "exploiting" being done is now, by Waterman, because he got totally lucky in that a bunch of internet jokesters happened to pick his song (mainly for how bad it is) to use as part of an internet joke. He deserves to get paid for that? It could have just as easily been any other ridiculous pop hit in the 80s. And, if it had been, then no one would be talking or caring about Waterman at all.

Furthermore, it was never YouTube making use of the music, but it was all these people on the internet, adopting the meme. YouTube was just the platform they used for it. So, no, Waterman wasn't exploited by YouTube in the slightest, though he seems to have no trouble at all trying to exploit the fact that he got lucky and whine about it -- even though it's the only reason his name is now in the news again.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    The infamous Joe, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:05pm

    I have to.

    More good insight on this issue here.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Somebody, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:12pm

    No you didn't

     

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

  •  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:18pm

    Wow...

    The funny thing here is that he's complaining that he earned £11 from Google last year. Not £11 total. Sorry to invoke the name, but this is the same mistake WH usually makes when discussing free models or YouTube - assuming that everything they do is in a vacuum and it doesn't affect revenue elsewhere.

    In the same period, how much did he get from the song being sold on iTunes as a result of the extra exposure? From Amazon or 80s CD compilations featuring the track? From rights being bought to play the song on TV? How many extra radio plays did it get as a result of rickrolling? What about the cover version and remixes produced in the last year (according to Wikipedia, at least 5), surely they'd have to pay royalties to the original songwriter as well? How much did he get as a result of the track being on Barry Manilow's 80s cover album? Would the song have been covered at all if not for rickrolling?

    I'd be willing to be he's made a lot of money from rickrolling. Just that the cheque didn't say "Google" on it, that doesn't mean YouTube had nothing to do with it.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Weird Harold, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 3:15pm

      Re: Never gonna beat you up

      I think you are all missing the point. This fellow DESERVES to be compensated for his work. It makes no difference where or when it was broadcast, nor how "good" it is. I actually own the album, but that's beside the point.

      Imagine if you wrote a song - doubtful as that may be - and then some group of Internet Kiddies decided to just run roughshod over your creation. You wouldn't like it.

      The Internet Kiddies I'm referring to are the miscreants at Google, who seem to think that the whole world is their personal Good Ship LollyFree.

      Well, it isn't.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Weird Harold, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 3:23pm

        Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up

        Another fake weird harold. Mike, please take out the trash.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 9:46pm

        Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up

        Uh, ok WHAT WORK? he got free PR and reaped the profits, and he is complaining? fuck this guy, and fuck you for constantly supporting these ass hats. The public will ultimately decide what he "deserves" and no law will ever change that. The "law" concerning copyrights and what is "right" are two completely different things, and we have the ability to get around the "law" and thats exactly what we will do.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        JEDIDIAH, Apr 12th, 2009 @ 3:08pm

        Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up

        > This fellow DESERVES to be compensated for his work.

        This fellow deserves to profit from his work. He doesn't deserve to extract money out of any particular entity. He also doesn't deserve to exert any effective control over his work. Since he published, he basically "set his work free".

        Put another way "Radio is no parasite" and should not be treated as one. Musicians that are too stupid to know any better shouldn't be give the ability to hurt themselves and others in the process.

        Perhaps this fellow should go and do some work today.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    "...to force Google to pay unsustainable rates..." there you go again adding some Masnick "facts" because the real facts don't say what you want them to say.

    "...Google "exploited" him, because he earned a grand total of £11 last year..." seems pretty clear cut without the Masnick "facts". You could have argued it's just desserts because his original success was built on exploitation also .... but that wouldn't fit the Misnick's religion so you have to make up some facts to fit what you want people to believe.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:27pm

      Re:

      "there you go again adding some Masnick "facts" because the real facts don't say what you want them to say."

      OK, then. What are the "real facts". Please provide relevant, unbiased cites that are supported by verifiable and complete information.

      I'm open-minded enough to consider any information you might want to provide. However, an anonymous post from someone who can't even spell the name of the target he's attacking doesn't make me think you have anything truthful to say on the subject. Feel free to prove me wrong.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re:

        Masnick says "...force Google to pay unsustainable rates..." and none of the information he referenced stated what rates were being asked or evaluated whether they might be sustainable. .... what conclusion can you draw other than he's making it up ?.

        Of course everyone knows who PaulT is so that's you're not anonymous at all !

         

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

        •  
          icon
          kirillian (profile), Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're right...he's not anonymous...maybe he didn't hand out his home address, driver's license number, credit card number, and social security number, but he has a name that we can recognize, and a reputation that goes along with that name. He's IDENTIFIABLE. You are NOT. It would be the same if I met you at some random party and you told me your first name. I would have a name and face to put with your words, giving me something to recognize you with. However, once we leave the party, I'm not gonna be able to find you again without some more information. Same here...once you leave this site, you don't have a method of finding PaulT again unless you can obtain some more information. In your case, none of use can tell which one of the who knows how many Anonymous Cowards there are that post here. So we can't really even address you. That's a HUGE difference. We may not particularly like or agree with Weird Harold, but, I must admit, I respect that he does post with an identifiable handle. Even when others try to impersonate him, it's quite obvious and others point it out rather quickly. Anyone can impersonate someone online, but that's no different from real life either. There's a reason why the handle is 'Anonymous Coward'...try to rationalize it anyway you want...

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Booger, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      I agree with you, Google needs to take the same stance as all the record companys and promoters. YouTube lost $470 million dollars this past year. It should divy up that debt among all the professional artists whose material was used, reduce each artist's debt by a fair percentage of the ad income they brought in, then bill everyone for what's left.

      I figure that, even if Google offers 50% of the ad income instead of the 1-2% the record companies would offer, then this guy would probably owe Google more than £11.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:44pm

        Re: Re:

        I agree with you, Google needs to take the same stance as all the record companys and promoters. YouTube lost $470 million dollars this past year. It should divy up that debt among all the professional artists whose material was used, reduce each artist's debt by a fair percentage of the ad income they brought in, then bill everyone for what's left.

        Brilliant!

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Norm, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      I don't like this guys tone, but he has a point. Does anyone know the actual numbers for these "unsustainable rates"?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        SteveD, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 5:54pm

        Re: Re: Norm

        "I don't like this guys tone, but he has a point. Does anyone know the actual numbers for these "unsustainable rates"?"

        Agreed, but I've never seen a figure. Google doesn't reveal how much money it makes from the site, and the PRS have never revealed how much they were asking for.

        It bothers me that the Google vs Rights-Society battles have been framed as 'Benevolent Google vs Evil greedy people'. If 154 million views nets a guy £11 then most artists must be seeing so little revenue its pointless even asking for it.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:29pm

    "* How much attention did Waterman's song get last year thanks to YouTube?
    * Fine, take away YouTube. How much attention would Waterman and his song have received last year"

    I don't get it - are you saying that anyone who is only noticed because someone else makes some effort doesn't deserve to profit ? if that were the case why would anyone have PR agents ?.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      The infamous Joe, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:33pm

      Re:

      No, he's saying that this man is claiming he was *exploited* by google, when google brought him all that money.

      We're saying that he should be happy his song was on google.

      I hope that clears things up.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Tgeigs, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:37pm

      Re:

      No, they profit from OTHER AVENUES. Pointing to Google saying, "look how popular I am because of what you did, now pay me some money for making my name recognizable again" is absolutely assanine. It's akin to not wanting people to hum your music and tell other people about it. YouTube INCREASED public awareness of his product, and he wants to be paid for it?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        mightymaz, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 3:37pm

        Re: Re:

        "No, they profit from OTHER AVENUES..."

        They intend profit from people obtaining and listening to the song, not particularly the OTHER AVENUES thought that may be possible.
        So it wouldn't be an issue of YouTube were an OTHER AVENUE and got publicity without people playing the song ... but YouTube isn't.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Bradley, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:40pm

      Re:

      And yet, people pay PR agents. PR agents don't pay their clients.

      But for all this publicity, he wants Google to pay him more?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Matt T., Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    Bad Song?

    mainly for how bad it is

    Bad song? I always thought it was pretty good.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Vila, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 1:58pm

    "Bad song? I always thought it was pretty good. "
    Just to clear it up for you, it's a bad, cheeseball song worthy of ridicule.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:14pm

      Re:

      "Bad song? I always thought it was pretty good. "
      Just to clear it up for you, it's a bad, cheeseball song worthy of ridicule.
      Yes, it is bad....and I like it too :)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:11pm

    Cue Weird Harold with some rhetoric about how Mike is only presenting one side of the facts to fit his argument.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    m3mnoch (profile), Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:32pm

    sales rank data

    from my blog post on his "exploitation."

    okay, tool. lemme explain how this works to you really, really quickly and easily.

    1. for the last 15 years, your song was lounging in obscurity. we're talking "6-digit amazon sales rank" obscurity.
    2. google "exploits" you with rickrolling.
    3. you can actually see a trend line tying rickrolling with a sales rank increase of "Never Gonna Give You Up -- yes. sales of the single, not just ad impressions.
    4. in fact, it puts your track at number 77 on the amazon charts selling up to 2500 units in a week. that's money from a sale of your song every 4 minutes.
    5. you are worth 47 million. ($68 million for those of us in the colonies.)

    just for kicks, let's look at what being 77 on the amazon download store means. as of right now, that's more popular than artists like kayne west, kenny chesney and the killers. all (despite your taste in music) much, much more relevant today than rick astley.

    m3mnoch.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:50pm

    Actually, I have to wonder when he says "google" does he in fact mean "google as youtube"?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 2:58pm

    Tool

    This guy is a real tool. I especially like this quote:

    "Panorama did a documentary on the exploitation of foreign workers in Dubai," he said.
    "I feel like one of those workers, because I earned less for a year's work off Google or YouTube than they did off the Bahrain government."

    Exactly how much work did he do to get 154 million views on YouTube? Sitting around collecting royalty checks and bitching about it is work? Is that how these deluded "artists" think? People looking at something you helped create decades ago equals doing work for which you deserve payment?

    There's also this:
    "If 154 million plays means £11, I get more from Radio Stoke playing Never Gonna Give You Up than I do from YouTube."

    Try and stay with me here, darling ... You get royalties from radio play and other sources mostly because YouTube has helped keep your pop fluff in the public mind and given it a new audience you would not have had. Oh, and what the others have said about the revitalized sales of the song.

    Shut up and go away.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 3:20pm

    dont forget the parade

    ****he earned a grand total of £11 last year, even while the video was a hit on YouTube.*****

    What about the money he earned when he and cartoon network rick rolled a whole parade. you know he got paid for that.
    so that should be added into the figure.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 4:22pm

    Clearly the songwriter made more money from the song because of the rickroll craze than he would have if it had not been on youtube. For example, I personally bought the song from itunes but would never have even heard this song if I hadn't seen it for free on YouTube.

    I disagree with the claim that the particular song is irrelevant to its recent popularity: I'm pretty sure that if the song itself weren't pretty catchy (yet also old and cheesy) the rickrolling thing would never have caught on the way it did.

    I think its presence on YouTube has added value for more or less everyone involved (with the possible exception of rickroll victims who genuinely despise the song), but that would likely still be the case if some larger portion of YouTube's advertising revenues went to the songwriter somehow.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    greg, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 6:17pm

    I honestly think your point fails miserably. What you're saying is akin to a producer making a movie, having it distributed via BitTorrent which made it immensely popular, and then saying that the producer should be thankful for BitTorrent rather than complaining that he never got paid for the distribution.

    I know it's in vogue to bash old media whiners over new media distribution mechanisms where no royalties are being paid. But let's face it: the only financial difference between old and new media these days is that there are venture capitalists to float the latter for a while.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 8:33pm

      Re:

      He was the song writer. How much do they get from what YouTube was paying the labels? Does he continue to be paid?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Todd, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 9:39pm

      Re:

      greg,

      Your example with BitTorrent making a movie popular is good. Since distribution is essentially free the producer can take wonderful advantage and market it very cheaply. Now that his previously unknown movie is now popular, he can begin cashing in on that popularity via scarce resources.

      Use the infinite to your advantage to make it matter to people. Then cash in with the scarce.

      Trying to cash in directly on that which is perceived as infinite (digital distribution), is just foolish. Trying to kill off that which made you popular is idiotic.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Weird Harold, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 11:18pm

        Re: Re:

        market it to who? If everyone has seen the movie for free, who the heck is buying it, or paying to see it in a theater if they have already seen it?

        What is his upsell? Does he start accepting $1000 a shot lunch dates or mini-putt games?

        It is amazing to see people who can't think past the end of their own infinite noses.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Todd, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 11:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is not really for the troll above, but in case anyone else has similar real questions.


          Obviously he'll market it to those that like it. Those that don't like it or are not aware of it won't give him any of their money. Duh. Consider a few points.

          1) I doubt 8 billion people will have seen the movie for "free". If it's good, many might here the buzz about it and pay to watch it in a theater. Those that saw it for "free" might want to see it again in a nice theater with their friends. The theater is selling the experience rather than controlling the view.

          2) Those that like it might actually be willing to pay for a DVD with bonus material or a collectors edition sold with a behind the scenes coffee table book, etc.

          3)License it to TV networks, cable companies, Hulu, etc and either get flat licensing fees or revenue sharing. Just because you make it freely available doesn't mean that others won't pay to associate themselves with the successful movie.

          4) If someone wants to give him $1000 for a round of mini-golf then sure, he could take it if he wanted. What you are really referring to though is access to him and his time. Maybe a lunch and some mentoring might be worth that.

          5) Since you are clearly not a hypocrite, I'm confident you've never ever, not even once bought water have you? That is essentially an infinite resource.

          Using what's freely available to sell something scarce is just plain smart. It's those like you that can't see past a direct sell per view that are short-sighted.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Weird Harold, Apr 11th, 2009 @ 6:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I understand where you are coming from, but it leaves me with a basic problem:

            Just making a great movie (replace with song, software, whatever) is apparently no longer enough.

            Can you imagine going to your job all day (for those of you who work for someone else) and at the end of the week, instead of a paycheck, you are invited to come to the bosses house and clean up the back yard where his dogs have been crapping, as an extra "upsell" that you should be offering, because just doing your job isn't enough to merit getting paid?

            Think about how that would feel.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Apr 11th, 2009 @ 11:08am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Just making a great movie (replace with song, software, whatever) is apparently no longer enough."

              It's not enough under the current system either. For example, I'm a member of eMusic and I love the service - enough that I no longer care about buying major label content. On a regular basis, both on eMusic's own forums and on other sites, people post messages along the lines of "there's no songs I heard on the radio 5 minutes ago therefore there's no good music" (paraphrasing - the language is usually much harsher). Wrong, of course, popularity has nothing to do with quality. As I always point out, every band you love started out as a band that nobody had ever heard of.

              In other words, under the current system it's not enough for someone to record a great song. It has to be marketed to within an inch of its life to hit the chart and played on radio every minute of every day, at the cost of many thousands of dollars. The burden and risk for these costs are usually borne by the artists in the form of advances (that must be paid back before any royalties are seen, usually on unfair terms) and by signing away creative and copyright control over the work to the label.

              One of the great things about these new models is that they remove the need for that. The RIAA, with their unfair contracts and impossible-to-pay-back "advances", is increasingly irrelevant. Again, nobody is going to force an artist to sign up for these new models. There are huge advantages for those who do, but there's more than one model to choose from if they're not comfortable with this one. That doesn't mean this model isn't workable, however.

              It would be nice if you listened to what people say here instead of reverting to your prior assumptions every time. People are not saying that artists do not deserve to be paid for their work. They are saying that the normal system is unsustainable, and that there are many other ways to make money if you use your imagination. Besides, here's the horrible truth that most artists do not want to hear - not everyone gets to be successful. It was true before the internet, it's true now. Hopefully these new models will encourage artists to be paid on the quality of their work, which is not what happens now.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              hegemon13, Apr 13th, 2009 @ 12:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Just making a great movie (replace with song, software, whatever) is apparently no longer enough."

              Sure it is. I see few movies in the theaters because, with two children, it means seeing a crappy kids' movie or paying a babysitter, which is more than I am willing to pay for a movie. I usually wait to Redbox them.

              That said, I went to both Dark Knight and Watchmen in the theater. Dark Knight was all because of recommendations. Guess when I decided to see Watchmen? When I saw the "3 minutes of Rorschach" segment online. For free. Had I seen the whole movie, I would only have been that much more pumped to see it in the theater. The movie is visually stunning, and it deserves a theatrical presentation. It gave me a reason to go out and see it, so I did. Same with Dark Knight.

              If your argument, that no one will see a movie more than once, were actually true, then no one would buy DVDs. First, the theaters would have "destroyed the market" for those DVDs by daring to show the movie. Then, movie rentals would have killed off what's left. If no one watched a movie more than once, there would be absolutely no reason to buy rather than rent.

              Yet, DVDs sell by the billions. I will buy Watchmen, despite having already spent $15.00 for a "fork-and-screen" showing. I will also at least rent the "Black Freighter" animated tie-in. Seeing a rip online would have changed none of this.

              Clearly, you have no f-ing clue. Just because you would not buy or attend a movie you have seen before, does not mean no one else will, and many do. At least 30% of the retail DVDs on my shelves are movies that originally entered my library in DivX form.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 11th, 2009 @ 10:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "market it to who? If everyone has seen the movie for free, who the heck is buying it, or paying to see it in a theater if they have already seen it?"

          So, you're saying that nobody ever goes to a second-run cinema, watches a movie they've already seen or buys a DVD of a movie they saw on TV/at a friend's house/via rental?

          Your wilful ignorance never ceases to impress me.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Apr 10th, 2009 @ 9:12pm

    FUWH

    "Imagine if you wrote a song - doubtful as that may be - and then some group of Internet Kiddies decided to just run roughshod over your creation. You wouldn't like it.

    The Internet Kiddies I'm referring to are the miscreants at Google, who seem to think that the whole world is their personal Good Ship LollyFree.

    Well, it isn't."

    Hey, YOU STUPID FUCKTARD, listen up. GOOGLE didnt put the videos online. YOUTUBE IS A PLATFORM, people USE it, they dont place the content THEMSELVES you dumbshit corporate lapdog SHILL.

    Do you blame the car manufacturer for what people do with the cars?

    Do you blame the gun manufacturers for how people use guns?

    Do you blame newspapers, or craigslist for the ads that people list?

    Do you blame COMCAST when Janet displays her breast during halftime of the superbowl?

    When people comment here on techdirt, do you blame TECHDIRT for the CONTENT of the comments?

    Get it through your industry-ass-filled-shit-for-brains-lapdog-HEAD that a PLATFORM is just a TOOL. The USERS are the ones putting the content out there, not GOOGLE. GOOGLE just owns youtube and provides a SERVICE, not the CONTENT.

    Worthless piece of garbage.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Apr 11th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    Waterman

    "it's the only reason his name is now in the news again." So, if he doesn't want his name on the news again, he shouldn't whine?
    Why wouldn't he want his name on the news again?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Apr 11th, 2009 @ 8:11pm

    Another piece of twisted Mike logic.

    The Rick Roll is entirely dependant on the song - without the song, it's a blank screen roll, meaningless. This guy did something (wrote a song) that was popular, wasn't popular, and is now popular again because of an internet campaign. Youtube is making millions of views on this video, shouldn't they be paying the normal rights to play it?

    No, wait, he hasn't done anything recently, so he deserves nothing, even though we are all enjoying his past work, it isn't relevant for him, only for the rest of us. He should get off his lazy ass and give concerts and... wait, he ain't Rick Astley, so it isn't like he can do that.

    Gee, all of a sudden we have an explaination for why there are artist rights for song writers and composers. For millions of views, you would think this guy shoudl earn more than $20.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2009 @ 6:50am

      Re:

      Another piece of twisted WH.

      The house is entirely dependant on the builder - without the builder, it's a blank property, meaningless. This builder did something (built a house) that was popular, wasn't popular, and is now popular again because of a Hollywood tour guide. Hollywood tour guide is making millions of views on this house, shouldn't they be paying the normal rights to view it?

      No, wait, the builder hasn't done anything recently, so he deserves nothing, even though we are all enjoying his past work, it isn't relevant for him, only for the rest of us. He should get off his lazy ass and build houses and... wait, he ain't Rick Astley, so it isn't like he can do that.

      Gee, all of a sudden we have an explaination for why there are artist rights for song writers and composers. For millions of views, you would think this guy shoudl earn more than $20.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Apr 12th, 2009 @ 10:08pm

    WeirdAssTard the idiot

    So...what you are saying is you are advocating tricking people out of their money through fraud, right? Because the entire purpose of a rickroll, and its entire reason for being so popular, is to TRICK PEOPLE INTO WATCHING VIA LIES. People are NOT seeking out these rickrolls, they are being conned into viewing them. Google is not "making millions" on these because the vast majority of people viewing them ARE NOT SEEKING THEM OUT or otherwise WANT to see them.

    So, with your lapdog parroting-the-company-line insistence that he should be paid because people are viewing his song/video, that means you are for cheating the consumer through deceptive practices.

    Sounds like a company man to me.

    And no, you cant "you're splitting hairs" your way out of this one. It either is or it isnt, and you cant argue both sides now. He either deserves to be paid REGARDLESS of the method including fraud, or he doesnt.

    But he DOES get to legitimately benefit when people get tricked and go "oh that song! I want to get that" and then go to itunes or wherever and buy it. He does NOT deserve to get paid for trick views that are a fraud.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    postal, Apr 13th, 2009 @ 8:43am

    agree with RD

    RD beat me to it, but was writing to say that every time I've seen that stupid song it pissed me off enormously, because I was clicking a link I thought would show me something else. Nobody deserves to get paid for those views. They should pay ME for having that abomination waved in front of my face.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    anymouse, Apr 13th, 2009 @ 11:41am

    Wierd Harold just can't accept the facts.

    "For millions of views, you would think this guy shoudl (sic) earn more than $20."

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew Aversa, Apr 14th, 2009 @ 10:37am

    Rebuttal

    I've posted a rebuttal to Masnick's argument at my music industry news & analysis blog, SoundTempest: http://soundtempest.net/industry-news/rickroll-exploitation-debate-a-rebuttal-to-mi ke-masnick/

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    skint muso, Apr 15th, 2009 @ 8:49am

    most ISP's & digital companies make huge profits from artist & labels. There's loads of digital music parasite corp's that cant make zilch without stealing from artists & the music industry. if you corp's dont want to pay for the music in your business DONT USE IT & STOP WHINGING.

    Now with the music industry going bust, because digital companies are stealing their lunch, is the time for huge wealthy corporations like google to start paying royalties to artists & labels. fairs fair.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Jeff, Dec 20th, 2009 @ 9:33am

    Artist wasn't "Spoiked" by Google

    I agree totally that Google and YouTube didn't exploit the artist. If you put a song on YouTube, whatever happens happens - he should feel so lucky, rather than "spoiked" (try to Google that to watch the YouTube video).

     

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


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