Rick Rolled Out

[Cramulus]

Earlier this week, the google-owned youtube pulled down Rick Astley's annoying masterpiece, "Never Gonna Give You Up". It turns out the video was mistakenly flagged as spam, but its disappearance did cause a bit of internet ruckus.

Linked in the above article, one of Never Gonna Give You Up's lyricists complains about being "exploited by google"

Waterman, co-author of the song, compared his plight to the "exploitation of foreign workers in Dubai."

"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," Waterman told the paper."


do these people just not fucking get it?

google-youtube does not owe you any royalties. They are not a label, they are a distribution platform. PEOPLE are linking each other to your video, that's what they do. They don't owe you money for that, the free exchange of information is how you got famous again to begin with. When your song was on the radio, Waterman, people talked about it. They hummed it to each other. They put it on mix tapes and gave it to their friends. And they did not owe you a single penny for that. What I'm describing is not you being "exploited by google", but fame itself.

Fame doesn't make you rich. Capitalizing on that fame does. I am certain that, based on the Rickroll phenomenon, Rick Astley could have relaunched his career had he wanted to. Waterman, you hack song writer, you could have cashed in on that too. But instead you're crying about how you're internet famous and nobody's cutting you a check.

The South Park Kids got it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e-VDXhXPSE (please note that this link contains copyrighted feckin video)


This looks like a good place to quote our good friend Synaptaclypse Generator:

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade’s work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris’ sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright.

As annoying as it was, Rick Rolling was a legitimate cultural event. If you were alive a few years ago, and you are hip enough to know that the internet isn't, like, some kind of home appliance or something, you probably got rickrolled. And I want to point out that Rick Astley took this joke very well. He certainly didn't go on a crusade to remove the video from the internet because he thinks somebody should be paying him whenever anybody makes a joke involving him. So Thanks Rick, something unique happened in our culture because you're not being a territorial dick about your precious IP.

I'm also baffled that OK GO's record label pulled down the music videos which relaunched their career. Don't they understand how much money they actually made from the free trade of information? That's not theoretical internet money, that was actual album sales.

If Waterman released an album a few years ago, and had the liner notes said "BY THE CO-AUTHOR OF NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP", I bet he would have made some good scratch off the notoriety. I know a few people that bought actual Rick Astley CDs because of the internet craze. So it's possible to capitalize off it if you're in the right place at the right time. But don't try to pretend that somebody owes you cash just because kids are talking to each other about your work.

Thanks to Enki for the original link

[LMNO]

You knew that was going to happen, right?

[MMIX]

posted without a single flying fuck as to the legality of my action . . .

[Captain Utopia]

I think we're still in that gray-area period where a few people understand the legitimacy of the argument made in the OP, but lack empirical evidence to back it up.  Intangible assets don't look good on paper, and no-one understands viral marketing on the internet well enough to profit from it consistently.  Although there is a decent market in pretending you do and selling that "wisdom".

For the first time, in terms of ability to collect and communicate information, the consumers are more intelligent than the producer.  I don't think the balance will ever really shift back, assuming the current ability for us to communicate does not diminish.

But waiting for industries and business models to adapt to these new realities is such a bore.

[Cramulus]

But waiting for industries and business models to adapt to these new realities is such a bore.

word

luckily we don't have to wait for anybody


That old adage "Information wants to be free" -- I know information itself doesn't want anything, but...

unregulated forms of communication are competing with regulated channels. The unregulated forms are going to win.

That's why more people pirate albums than download them on iTunes.

Thats' why more people pirate movies than subscribe to Netflix.

When Never Gonna Give You Up disappeared from youtube, it was never really gone - it was already on a hundred other video-hosting websites.

Right now I've got to watch a 15 second commercial before I can view a 30 second youtube clip... When you watch a clip, a banner ad pops up twice during the video and you have to close it manually. I don't think this is going to last. Eventually youtube will have a competitor, and people will go to the one with the least intrusive ads.

And then there's the Streisand Effect - that you can't really take information out of the internet, it's like taking pee out of a pool. Furthermore, trying to cover up knowledge which is already widespread, it just draws more attention to the info you're trying to hide.

"The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore


BTW, here is Barbara Streisand's house: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/barbra-streisands-house/
some of you may enjoy clicking that link just because Streisand doesn't want anybody to know where it is.

and hahahah - Dick Cheney got HIS house pulled off of google maps - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/what-is-google/ ------ but you can still find it via yahoo maps. 

[East Coast Hustle]

posted without a single flying fuck as to the legality of my action . . .

thanks for your consideration. Don't worry, there is absolutely nobody associated with this website who could in any way be held legally and financially responsible for copyright infringement.

[Jasper]

I don't get it - it's just an image right?

[Requia ☣]

unregulated forms of communication are competing with regulated channels. The unregulated forms are going to win.

That's why more people pirate albums than download them on iTunes.

Thats' why more people pirate movies than subscribe to Netflix.

Legitimate forms of media consumption are actually far more popular than piracy.  The pirates are still in the minority (and the pirates never stopped buying things legitimately, in fact they buy more than the non pirates).

Piracy wins on overall volume, because a pirate can use up far far more media than they could ever afford to pay for, but not on people using it.

[Jasper]

Also, from http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

Specifically, total U.S. shipments dropped from 1.08 billion units shipped in 2000 to 968.58 million in 2001-a 10.3 percent decrease. The dollar value of all music product shipments decreased from $14.3 billion in 2000 to $13.7 billion in 2001-a 4.1 percent decrease, according to figures released today by the RIAA.

"This past year was a difficult year in the recording industry, and there is no simple explanation for the decrease in sales. The economy was slow and 9/11 interrupted the fourth quarter plans, but, a large factor contributing to the decrease in overall shipments last year is online piracy and CD-burning," said Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the RIAA. "When 23 percent of surveyed music consumers say they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free, we cannot ignore the impact on the marketplace."

They sort of left out how they only put out 81% as many new releases for the years they're saying piracy has detrimented business.

So the record industry cut their inventory (and artist investment) by (about) 25 percent and sales only dropped 4.1 percent, even though the economy is at rock bottom. There were almost 12,000 fewer new releases for the consumer to choose from in 2001 than 1999. The record companies are making more money per release than ever.

[Requia ☣]

Piracy is (probably) negligible, though its hard to quantify.  The things that are really hurting the old media industries are new forms of entertainment (video games, the internet), lowered wages (especially compared to inflation), and rising costs to consume the media (an ipod is more expensive than a discman).  Having to compete with video games takes its toll.

The music industry in particular is acting like morons though, the optimal price point for music is about half what it is now (estimated to triple the sales*, which is a not insignificant increase in profit when you have nearly fixed costs of production).

*Those estimates are for the British market, I don't know what the estimates are for the US.

[Payne]

I don't get it - it's just an image right?

I think it may have a lot to do with the sentiment as opposed to the action.

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't get it - it's just an image right?

Yeah, I don't care about the image at all, I was just pointing out that this is not the right venue for escalating an interesting discussion on the validity of the current IP law framework into a personal assault on copyright law in a place where other people may be on the hook for your illegal behavior in that regard. I don't think MMIX is actually trying to get anyone in trouble so it's really no big deal and hopefully won't derail the thread.

[Cramulus]

btw - OP edited to include context of the Waterman quote:

Waterman, co-author of the song, compared his plight to the "exploitation of foreign workers in Dubai."

"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," Waterman told the paper."

those guys make $149 per month for heavy construction work and living in a bunker with 3000 people, so they pretty much are still better off than that douchebag. 

[MMIX]

Cramulus, if they are actually getting $149 / month then they are earning close to $1800 p.a. Waterman was paid $16 by google/youtube which is way less than 1% of that.  This was for the use of copyrighted material the creation of which is the basis of Waterman's employment and livelihood. I have huge problems with the  current state of IP "rights" and copyright law in general but I honestly think you are being unfair to Pete Waterman in this instance - hence my, apparently unsuccessful, attempt at irony with the punk collective image with the anti-copyright message and my "blind justice" hands over the eyes comment on my personal responsibility towards the copyright law.

ps I've censored the image and I'll just slink off and STFU now . . .


pps ECH I would never try to get you in trouble, I'm sure you don't need my help anyway . . . 


ppps Americans  . . . Irony . . .  who knew . . .

[ThatGreenGentleman]

In response to LMNO.