On one hand I understand and agree that song writers should be fairly compensated with royalties when their song is played.

On the other hand, I have to wonder how much of that royalty a writer is entitled to if someone just listens to 3 seconds of the song and shuts it off, as is the case with Rick-Rolling.

If I had a third hand, I'd also weigh the fact that that's a crappy song.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like by having sent him anything, Google is admitting that they should need to pay him. And you would imagine that, if they are to owe him anything, it's more than 16 bucks.

On the other hand (from the article):

Waterman, who in 2004 was estimated to be worth £47 million (just shy of $69 million), recently held a press conference in which he compared his plight to that of exploited migrant labor in Dubai.

What a douche.

Epsilon: I'd also weigh the fact that that's a crappy song.

I disagree. It was a good song, as far as 80s pop music goes, but the video was mediocre at best. Iron Maiden's Flight of Icarus was a better video, even though less acrobatics were involved.

Epsilon: On the other hand, I have to wonder how much of that royalty a writer is entitled to if someone just listens to 3 seconds of the song and shuts it off, as is the case with Rick-Rolling.

Video views are only counted if you watch the entire video on youtube.

As far as I'm concerned, they ran around, they let him down, and they deserted him.

Yes, but he's made millions of theoretical dollars.

thegod082: I'm no lawyer, but it seems like by having sent him anything, Google is admitting that they should need to pay him. And you would imagine that, if they are to owe him anything, it's more than 16 bucks.

On the other hand (from the article):

Waterman, who in 2004 was estimated to be worth £47 million (just shy of $69 million), recently held a press conference in which he compared his plight to that of exploited migrant labor in Dubai.

What a douche.

No based on the 'luxury' douche on amazon.. hes 7.1 Million douches

Cause god knows, he's making millions off of royalties for that song elsewhere.

Seriously, that's probably more money he's recieved from that song than in the last 20 years.

King Something: I disagree. It was a good song, as far as 80s pop music goes, but the video was mediocre at best. Iron Maiden's Flight of Icarus was a better video, even though less acrobatics were involved.

That was actually an inventive rickroll. Well done.

Can we institute a copyright maximum, where material becomes public after $4 million dollars was made off of it?

Seriously. End the monopolies.

Considering the crimes that Stock, Aitken, and Waterman unleashed upon humanity, he should be paying us for having to put up with the unbelievable amount of festering pop shiat they shoveled upon us.farking wanker.

I was under the impression that royalties wouldn't be paid by YouTube, considering that you can -- at any time -- contact them to have your intellectual property removed. Everything there is supposed to theoretically be public domain or user-generated.

GonzoNihilist: Link

Well, this certainly looks like an interesting link to foll...YOU SON OF A BIATCH

As far as I understand it, Youtube's current agreement (which is what this guy's check was based on) has artificial caps based on how big the site was then.

Everyone agrees they're going to have a new agreement by which he'd get much more money, so the size of the check he got now doesn't matter. The question is how much he'd get under the new proposed agreements.

(if anyone knows better feel free to ravage this post).

Illidan: (if anyone knows better feel free to ravage this post).

Since this concerns the 80's, I'd rather ravage Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, or Taylor Dane.

Never gonna GIVE, never gonna GIVE....give you shiat.

Waterman, who in 2004 was estimated to be worth £47 million (just shy of $69 million), recently held a press conference in which he compared his plight to that of exploited migrant labor in Dubai.

Cause the exploited Pakistani guy in Dubai is worth millions too right?

This is an outrage and a complete travesty of.... Ooooooh, a [name redacted] peanut butter cup!!1!1!!

His fortune is irrelevant. Sixteen bucks in royalties for writing something that generates millions of clicks - over 36 million from the first two search results on YouTube alone - is a first-class gank.

Hoopy Frood: His fortune is irrelevant. Sixteen bucks in royalties for writing something that generates millions of clicks - over 36 million from the first two search results on YouTube alone - is a first-class gank.

How about his hypocrisy with M/A/R/R/S? The dude is a first class Wentz.

So google pays $0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 per click?

If you can capture the statutory mechanical royalties for ring tones, I would certainly think you could demand royalties under these circumstances.

Hoopy Frood: His fortune is irrelevant. Sixteen bucks in royalties for writing something that generates millions of clicks - over 36 million from the first two search results on YouTube alone - is a first-class gank.

I'd like to see how much profit google made from the video. If people who watched it never clicked an ad they likely lost a ton of money due to bandwidth costs.

because Pete Waterman never exploited any of his 80 dirge of drivel

/fark him

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: As far as I'm concerned, they ran around, they let him down, and they deserted him.

milowitz: Never gonna GIVE, never gonna GIVE....give you shiat.

quoted for funny

If he got paid for how many people actually went to that page to watch the video intentionally, he's lucky to get that much.

AAAAAND if he gets paid, I want the top Rickrollers to get paid as well. Seems only fair.

Carth: I'd like to see how much profit google made from the video. If people who watched it never clicked an ad they likely lost a ton of money due to bandwidth costs.

For some reason, picturing a guy who clicks a Rickroll and goes "Ooooh, low interest mortgage rates!" and clicks an ad is incredibly funny. He's all pissed and ready to send his browser back, when he glimpses his oasis of tiny introductory rates.

Hoopy Frood: His fortune is irrelevant. Sixteen bucks in royalties for writing something that generates millions of clicks - over 36 million from the first two search results on YouTube alone - is a first-class gank.

A creation he did over 20 years ago, had been richly and justly compensated for at the time, and and wouldn't have given too shakes about if not for a silly internet prank.

I really hate Richard Stallman but this kind of BS is what keeps people like him in business. He didn't earn anything here - he wrote a song, he was paid for it, it was discovered again 20 years later. He did no work, no promotion, no nothing to make any money. Personally, he should be happy with the couple of big macs he can get for it.

saintstryfe: he wrote a song, he was paid for it, it was discovered again 20 years later. He did no work, no promotion, no nothing to make any money. Personally, he should be happy with the couple of big macs he can get for it.

In all my years of Fark, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say.

He should just happy anyone remembers his name...

Stompn_Tom: So google pays $0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 per click?

Have you seen CPMs for banner ads lately on ValueClick? That would be considered pretty good ;)

buntz: In all my years of Fark, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say.

Why is that? I don't think people should get to profit from a work for eternity. I'm an archivist, and copyright is becoming more and more of a problem in my guild. Right now, since the Sunny Bono act, it's life plus 75 years. That's obscene, it practically assures anyone who created anything now would be able to practically never have to give anything up to the public domain. It's simply wrong. It impedes artistic development for base profit-mongering.

Some of the people on this side of the argument, the Stallmans and the like, are wrong. But that doesn't mean that the Disney-esque "We will push copyright back 20 years every time it comes due" thing is right either.

saintstryfe: copyright is becoming more and more of a problem in my guild.

Damn fixing my WoW auctions while Farking. I meant "more and more of a problem in my PROFESSION."

That'll learn me.

I always thought Astley sounded kinda like Michael McDonald [of Doobie Bros fame]... it's not a bad song as poppy bubble gum goes. I never heard of it in the 80's tho' it could be because I was more into punk and local bands and stuff. Top 40 sucked worse than ever: Jefferson Starship, Duran Duran, Tears For Fears, - all that made me reach for Tim Carrol Band, Ramones, Sex Pistols and even the occasional Plasmatics when all else failed to kill the earworms that were 80's top 40 playlists...

I guess the world was just not ready to see Howdy Doody throwin' down and bustin' moves and what not.

But now, after talking about it I can here Tears For Fears in my head... time to break out the Primus ...

I was amused saintstryfe: I'm an archivist, and copyright is becoming more and more of a problem in my guild.

I was amused to read one of the pro "creator" moguls discussing the evil, worthless organizations which have never done anything for us and oppose innovative and beneficial copyright law proposals. Google, Electronic Freedom Foundation, etc..

and libraries.

WTF?! Are they trying to declare war on the entire world?

Arbus_Khan: Top 40 sucked worse than ever: Jefferson Starship, Duran Duran, Tears For Fears, - all that made me reach for Tim Carrol Band, Ramones, Sex Pistols and even the occasional Plasmatics when all else failed to kill the earworms that were 80's top 40 playlists...

Tears for Fears didn't suck and weren't typical pop music.

I find it odd that the writer uses the man's current net worth as an argument against him receiving payment for his work.

The one has nothing to do with the other.

I was amused at the link on the right on the ROFLCon.

Link (new window)

He knows the rules.

Tears for Fears didn't suck and weren't typical pop music.

Well, maybe Tears for Fears weren't as bad as some- I may have been a bit too hasty in that assessment. But Starship and the last Styx albums, etc. just always made me want to take hostages.

Arbus_Khan: Well, maybe Tears for Fears weren't as bad as some- I may have been a bit too hasty in that assessment. But Starship and the last Styx albums, etc. just always made me want to take hostages.

So long as you made those hostages listen to the Ramones we will have no disagreements.

Tears for Fears had some really overplayed singles, but if you listen to the albums they were a lot deeper than a lot of pop fluff of that time. Just sayin'.

This royalty thing is retarded.. Once you're paid to do a job, that's it.. Do I pay the tradesmen who built my house a yearly stipend? no. Do i owe the guy that made my hammer money every time I bang a nail? no. Do your job, take your pay. go home.

Tears for Fears had some really overplayed singles, but if you listen to the albums they were a lot deeper than a lot of pop fluff of that time. Just sayin'.

That actually goes for a lot of artists; heck- I had a girlfriend once who had and album by Pink- the only song I'd ever heard was the 1 chord "I'm Coming up" [had to learn it for a band I was in] - but the other cuts were some pretty good bluesy and R&B type stuff... but it'll never get on the radio.
Program Directors are clearly tone deaf pathological individuals.

Anyone who reads this should pay me.
(C)April 11, 2009

It should be noted that youtube is bleein money.

saintstryfe: Hoopy Frood: His fortune is irrelevant. Sixteen bucks in royalties for writing something that generates millions of clicks - over 36 million from the first two search results on YouTube alone - is a first-class gank.

A creation he did over 20 years ago, had been richly and justly compensated for at the time, and and wouldn't have given too shakes about if not for a silly internet prank.

I really hate Richard Stallman but this kind of BS is what keeps people like him in business. He didn't earn anything here - he wrote a song, he was paid for it, it was discovered again 20 years later. He did no work, no promotion, no nothing to make any money. Personally, he should be happy with the couple of big macs he can get for it.

So let's I develop a process that used to inhibit certain cell receptors in genes, put it to some moderate use, and then don't use it for 20 years, but then it turns out to be critical in curing cancer -- I shouldn't be compensated for it because I did no promotion for it?

deltabourne: So let's I develop a process that used to inhibit certain cell receptors in genes, put it to some moderate use, and then don't use it for 20 years, but then it turns out to be critical in curing cancer -- I shouldn't be compensated for it because I did no promotion for it?

Now let's say that the cure for cancer was actually a hoax. Now your analogy is pertinent.

Alacritous: This royalty thing is retarded.. Once you're paid to do a job, that's it.. Do I pay the tradesmen who built my house a yearly stipend? no. Do i owe the guy that made my hammer money every time I bang a nail? no. Do your job, take your pay. go home.

Good point, I dont get a royalty check from Bayer because I keep their Betaseron production line going

smeag0l: Anyone who reads this should pay me.
(C)April 11, 2009

My Nigerian uncle wants to wire you the money, please provide account number