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
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: exploit, pete waterman, rickroll, videos
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to.
PS- I think it's Astley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ouch.
At least it wasn't a Goatse.cx link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to.
Thanks for posting that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No you didn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never gonna beat you up
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never gonna beat you up
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course everyone knows who PaulT is so that's you're not anonymous at all !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Norm
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* 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 ?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're saying that he should be happy his song was on google.
I hope that clears things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But for all this publicity, he wants Google to pay him more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Song?
Bad song? I always thought it was pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Song?
Wait!
Damn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to clear it up for you, it's a bad, cheeseball song worthy of ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sales rank data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tool
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont forget the parade
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUWH
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waterman
Why wouldn't he want his name on the news again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I think he did. In your own words, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WeirdAssTard the idiot
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agree with RD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wierd Harold just can't accept the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artist wasn't "Spoiked" by Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]