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

from the entitlement-society dept

Wed, May 25th 2011 11:59am — Mike Masnick

This is from a few weeks ago, but just getting around to it. The latest example of ridiculous entitlement in an age of people claiming "ownership" to all sorts of things they have no ownership over, is that the popular singer Adele says that her ex-boyfriend has been demanding a cut of the royalties from her massively successful debut album, 19, because he apparently "inspired" many of the songs on the album about how awful their relationship and breakup apparently were. She apparently told him to get lost, stating:

"Well, you made my life hell, so I lived it and now I deserve it."

Of course, it would be amusing to see this (nameless) guy try to make a publicity rights claim out of it, though I couldn't see it getting very far. Still, in this day and age, when people seem to think they have an intellectual property right over anything that tangentially relates to them, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually reached that stage.

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: adele, entitlement, ownership, royalties

52 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 12:04pm

Snore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 12:10pm

Dumb pud brings dumb lawsuit = intellectual property is dumb.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 12:15pm

Re:
Strawman much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re:
Lots of dumb puds bring lots of dumb lawsuits = intellectual property is fostering an entitlement mentality
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:26pm

But if the boyfriend isn't given his fair share, what incentive will he have to be a jerk to his girlfriends in the future? Do you really want women to be happy Mike? That's despicable of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:32pm

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

Oh, that's droll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:32pm

Re:
It is exhausting reading the AC's mindless comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Schroth (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:34pm

When I consider that Adele is probably going to be very wealthy, I can't help feeling that this guy could have had it all, if he hadn't been such a jerk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 25 May 2011 @ 12:39pm

I think we just found a new analogy for defining chutzpah. One almost has to admire the man for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 12:41pm

This was already on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me - Bluff the Listener a couple weeks ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re:
You essentially reworded my statement but left the gist.

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

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

That's through the looking glass, bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hobo, 25 May 2011 @ 12:51pm

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

Perhaps this was his plan all along, inspire money-making album, but he just didn't plan well enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Historian (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:52pm

You oughta know, the Ex-boyfriend is going to swallow a jagged little pill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:53pm

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

I kinda hope he does.

Watching the internet community pounce all over this guy like a pride of lions on a wounded gazelle would be entertaining to say the least. Probably be better then the Judith Griggs/Cooks Source thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimr (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:57pm

entitlement
It the growing sense of entitlement.

More and more people feel they are just entitled to benefits, money, etc. A great personification of ones selfish nature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hobo, 25 May 2011 @ 1:07pm

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

How Dave Coulier could inspire anyone to write that is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 1:14pm

sooo youre telling me this isnt an article in the onion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
taoareyou (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
There have been puds ex's for a pretty long time. It's only now that IP has become so outrageous that they believe they have the right to make such laughable demands. They are not pointing out he is a pud, they are pointing out that this belief that we can somehow own and monetize our every idea and experience on the backs of others has caused the pud to think his demands are rational.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
that the problem is IP

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

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

Just because something has been done one way for (only) the past 200 years does not mean it must be done that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's only now that IP has become so outrageous

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

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

It doesn't. People have always brought dumb lawsuits and always will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 25 May 2011 @ 1:32pm

Bucks
Well *I* demand money for having to be on the same planet with these two!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re:
Hahahaha I was also thinking Alanis has had it now...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 1:38pm

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

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

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

Self created reality is so awesome...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:45pm

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

ignore him, it's the most destructive thing you can do to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 25 May 2011 @ 1:52pm

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

Um...

Does this make it different?
Or this?
Or how about this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raphael (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 2:01pm

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

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

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

3. You're being paid to troll.
This seems unlikely, and I actually can't see an outcome. I just have questions: How much does it pay? Do they let you work from home? Do you have regular hours, or is it an on call situation? What do you tell your friends you do for a living? Do you download albums on Bittorrent? Do they ask that before they hire you? Who is 'they'? Do you have a quota? Do you ever write your own anticopyright articles to 'refute?' Do you enjoy it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 2:03pm

Write a book!
Hey, Jesse James is trying it out, though he was kinda recognizable before he married, and subsequently cheated on, Sandra Bullock, which gives him some extra leverage in the public conciousness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright extension act maybe. But that was only 20 years. Big whoop. The other two are just extending brick and mortar laws to cyberspace. The fundamental tenets of IP aren't any different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 2:08pm

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

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

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

Get back under your bridge AC' troll!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re:
1) be a jackass
2) inspire someone to write an album based on it
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 2:21pm

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

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

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

You still haven't, and can't, provide one iota of evidence to support your position. It doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Self created reality is so awesome..."

Indeed, when big corporations make the self created reality that their position isn't delusional and expect anyone to take them seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 25 May 2011 @ 2:31pm

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

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

The DMCA applied rules for copy protection that didn't exist in the analog world. You could legally back up a VHS tape, even if there was a manufacturer designed element that attempted to prevent copying. The DMCA introduced anti-circumvention rules, taking the right to circumvent the protections on your own purchases away from consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Snore. Like the internet changed anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
only 20 years. Big whoop

HAHAHAHAHA!

Amazing... Do you get a weekly newspaper delivered by horse or something? Do you have any idea the speed at which information flows nowadays? 20 years is a HUGE whoop in terms of media and information. I think this explains why your perspective on this stuff is so out of whack: you are a time traveller from the 1870s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 3:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
You essentially reworded my statement but left the gist.

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

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

Oh wait, you are a Techdirt troll, so that actually is kind of impressive. Congratulations! Keep it up and soon enough you'll graduate from reading comprehension to logic and reason, and then one day if you're lucky, average intelligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 4:33pm

... *shakes head slowly*
"The other two are just extending brick and mortar laws to cyberspace"

It does not take a genius to figure out the architecture of the real world don't apply in cyberspace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what?

That doesn't change what is considered IP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 5:09pm

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

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 25 May 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re:
He might have a jerk right which has been infringed upon. Imaginary property rights are serious business and we need to respect them otherwise these jerks will cease to create new jerkdoms and then where will we all be without all these jerks around ..... errr never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 25 May 2011 @ 5:21pm

Rather than being a whiny little douche, why doesn't he go write his own songs about the bad relationship, cash in and shut the hell up ... because he lacks the talent I would guess and therefore is not entitled to his claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 5:24pm

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

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

(Note: If Phil Collins is still alive, I offer my sincerest apologies to both him and his fans.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Only" 20, my ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom, 26 May 2011 @ 1:49am

So this guy is suing so that it can be made public how he is the guy who made a popular singer's "life hell"? Way to go, man! You're living up to the lyrics!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 1:57am

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

Expect Bin Laden's family to ask for a cut of the royalties from the (inevitable) movie about his demise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 26 May 2011 @ 6:11am

Re: In a related development
The hilter youtube videos are hilarious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 26 May 2011 @ 8:52am

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

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

If you think nothing has changed, you haven't been paying attention or else you're head is stuck in the 20th Century (or somewhere else) intentionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 9:54am

Re: Re:
http://xkcd.com/810/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 11:27am

Re: Who's next?
http://www.nyrock.com/worldbeat/08_2000/082300a.asp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
get him back forever, 14 Aug 2011 @ 1:32am

It's so hilarious
simply hilarious...LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm

Like your post
Hello I really like your post and I think that it's cool. I want to use it in my article. Is it possible? Of course, I will write a source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marina, 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:59pm

Useful
Extremely useful thank you, I'm sure your trusty audience would definitely want a great deal more items like this maintain the excellent work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]