'I was exploited by Google'(telegraph.co.uk)
telegraph.co.uk
'I was exploited by Google'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/5130427/Pete-Waterman-I-was-exploited-by-Google.html
47 comments
Why does he deserve royalties?
It probably took him, oh I don't know... less than two months to co-write, 22 years ago.
It probably took him, oh I don't know... less than two months to co-write, 22 years ago.
> Why does he deserve royalties?
I take it you don't approve of software patents either? In the interest of consistency, that is.
I take it you don't approve of software patents either? In the interest of consistency, that is.
Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique.
The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions, such that any time you released what you considered a new piece of music there was a small but real chance that you would be sued for an amount greater than your life's savings. Are you confident of your ability to convince a court that your strumming of GCDG is sufficiently original to be non-infringing?
You mentioned in an earlier thread that you worked as a developer, so I presume you are familiar with these issues. Am I right that you 1) presume that you are legally shielded by your employer and 2) that you do not release the source to the code that you write?
The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions, such that any time you released what you considered a new piece of music there was a small but real chance that you would be sued for an amount greater than your life's savings. Are you confident of your ability to convince a court that your strumming of GCDG is sufficiently original to be non-infringing?
You mentioned in an earlier thread that you worked as a developer, so I presume you are familiar with these issues. Am I right that you 1) presume that you are legally shielded by your employer and 2) that you do not release the source to the code that you write?
> Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique.
You raise some valid points. But you're not really disagreeing with me, are you? You say "as currently implemented", which means that you agree in principle to the concept. And if, if you recall, the comment I was replying was questioning whether royalties should exist at all; they weren't suggesting that it be "tweaked", rather that it be abolished altogether. I'm saying that's a pretty extreme view, and used the similar case of software patents to make my point.
In any case, I agree that there is a tradeoff, and it's true that in some cases -- especially software patents --we've gotten to a kind of silly season. But I don't think all patents -- even the majority of patents -- are egregious.
Perhaps I was too restrictive in specifying software patents. A new question: do you not agree with patents in general? I think it's much harder to argue that, for instance, a pharmaceutical that invests billions of dollars on a new treatment shouldn't be protected from a competitor simply copying its product and putting it to the market.
I'm basically arguing that the concept of intellectual property is a valid and fair one. Obviously there can be debates about details, but the principle, in my view, is sound, and even the most ardent of open-source adherents agrees as much, else why the meticulous emphasis on the precise terms of licenses like the GPL? If you don't believe the creator has "ownership" over something that can be copied at zero cost, how can you argue against, for instance, Tivoization?
> The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions
I would have thought that the musical analogy is copyright, which refers to an expression -- a somewhat nebulous term but which is nonetheless amenable to common sense judgements. To patent chord progressions would obviously be silly, because there's relatively few of them that sound good. And yes, I am 100% confident that my songs (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk) are sufficiently distinct from anything else that I could argue that in a court of law and prevail! They are indeed original expressions ;)
To answer your questions: 1) You mean from patent infringement? Yes, I would think so. 2) No; I work in a hedge fund. To open-source our strategies would be commercial suicide. I suppose that gives me a different outlook from you. ;)
You raise some valid points. But you're not really disagreeing with me, are you? You say "as currently implemented", which means that you agree in principle to the concept. And if, if you recall, the comment I was replying was questioning whether royalties should exist at all; they weren't suggesting that it be "tweaked", rather that it be abolished altogether. I'm saying that's a pretty extreme view, and used the similar case of software patents to make my point.
In any case, I agree that there is a tradeoff, and it's true that in some cases -- especially software patents --we've gotten to a kind of silly season. But I don't think all patents -- even the majority of patents -- are egregious.
Perhaps I was too restrictive in specifying software patents. A new question: do you not agree with patents in general? I think it's much harder to argue that, for instance, a pharmaceutical that invests billions of dollars on a new treatment shouldn't be protected from a competitor simply copying its product and putting it to the market.
I'm basically arguing that the concept of intellectual property is a valid and fair one. Obviously there can be debates about details, but the principle, in my view, is sound, and even the most ardent of open-source adherents agrees as much, else why the meticulous emphasis on the precise terms of licenses like the GPL? If you don't believe the creator has "ownership" over something that can be copied at zero cost, how can you argue against, for instance, Tivoization?
> The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions
I would have thought that the musical analogy is copyright, which refers to an expression -- a somewhat nebulous term but which is nonetheless amenable to common sense judgements. To patent chord progressions would obviously be silly, because there's relatively few of them that sound good. And yes, I am 100% confident that my songs (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk) are sufficiently distinct from anything else that I could argue that in a court of law and prevail! They are indeed original expressions ;)
To answer your questions: 1) You mean from patent infringement? Yes, I would think so. 2) No; I work in a hedge fund. To open-source our strategies would be commercial suicide. I suppose that gives me a different outlook from you. ;)
Yes, I am disagreeing with you, but probably over matters of implementation rather than of ideals. I'm pro-patents (and pro-royalties) to the extent to which granting a temporary monopoly benefits society as a whole. I do not believe that that one has an innate right to such a monopoly, rather that it is to the advantage of society to grant such a right to incentivize the production of something beneficial that would not otherwise be produced. I presume this is more or less your position as well.
Where we likely disagree most is regarding term. The term for (non-software) patents seems almost reasonable, but I find it hard to believe that those 75 years after the life of the author (under US copyright) increases the production of great music. The 50 years from date of production for music under UK law seems more reasonable, but I'd guess that very little of the music I enjoy would suffer if this time was reduced sharply.
Where we likely disagree most is regarding term. The term for (non-software) patents seems almost reasonable, but I find it hard to believe that those 75 years after the life of the author (under US copyright) increases the production of great music. The 50 years from date of production for music under UK law seems more reasonable, but I'd guess that very little of the music I enjoy would suffer if this time was reduced sharply.
[deleted]
No I don't fully approve of them. That doesn't mean I want to scrap them entirely, or that I have a better replacement for them.
I do think it's different - the music industry copyright covers "a song", wheras the software industry patents "a feature". If you asked a band to write you a song, there's no chance they would accidentally come out with music that sounds like Never Gonna Give You Up, the same lyrics, and a singer who sounds like Rick Astley such that someone could sue them for being a close imitation.
But if you asked an isolated small development company to develop a program of significant size and ability to be useful and saleable, there's a strong chance they will include some feature somewhere that (arguably) infringes on an existing patent. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents - The patent relates to a progress bar. Filed in 1989. Probably a new thing in 1989. Not in 1999. Certainly not in 2009.
I do think it's different - the music industry copyright covers "a song", wheras the software industry patents "a feature". If you asked a band to write you a song, there's no chance they would accidentally come out with music that sounds like Never Gonna Give You Up, the same lyrics, and a singer who sounds like Rick Astley such that someone could sue them for being a close imitation.
But if you asked an isolated small development company to develop a program of significant size and ability to be useful and saleable, there's a strong chance they will include some feature somewhere that (arguably) infringes on an existing patent. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents - The patent relates to a progress bar. Filed in 1989. Probably a new thing in 1989. Not in 1999. Certainly not in 2009.
"Waterman, whose fortune was estimated at £47 million by The Times in 2004, compared this treatment to the "exploitation" of migrant workers in the Middle East."
I like this line.
Presumably Waterman signed a contract with his publisher that allowed his song to be played by Google. If that contract is exploitative, surely that's his publisher's fault (or his own, for signing it), not Google's.
I like this line.
Presumably Waterman signed a contract with his publisher that allowed his song to be played by Google. If that contract is exploitative, surely that's his publisher's fault (or his own, for signing it), not Google's.
Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf -- otherwise Waterman would have to sign a contract with each and every local radio station, pub, etc.
The PRS negotiated the agreement with Google at a rate close to .022p per play (note: pence, not pounds!), which is well below the legally mandated minimum (I believe this legal minimum was introduced after the agreement with Google) for radio stations and other users of 0.22p per-play. Google, so far, has been getting an excellent deal compared to other redistributors of music. That they can't manage to eek a profit out of their business model is not PRS For Music's fault.
I applaud Waterman's looking out for the interests of musicians and songwriters -- considering how much mullah he already has, it's quite clear that he's not doing this out of self-interest. He's interested in protecting the community of musicians and songwriters. And rightly so, in my opinion: they are being fleeced.
The PRS negotiated the agreement with Google at a rate close to .022p per play (note: pence, not pounds!), which is well below the legally mandated minimum (I believe this legal minimum was introduced after the agreement with Google) for radio stations and other users of 0.22p per-play. Google, so far, has been getting an excellent deal compared to other redistributors of music. That they can't manage to eek a profit out of their business model is not PRS For Music's fault.
I applaud Waterman's looking out for the interests of musicians and songwriters -- considering how much mullah he already has, it's quite clear that he's not doing this out of self-interest. He's interested in protecting the community of musicians and songwriters. And rightly so, in my opinion: they are being fleeced.
He's not being fleeced. You think he'd be better off if Rick Astley was banned from Youtube? Without Youtube, there would be no Rickrolling, and there would be no value in having the rights to "Never Gonna Give You Up". Plus, I'm sure the phenomenon is making him money via making the song more popular in other more lucrative channels. This is making him money, just not as much as he'd like.
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying he's not being fleeced because he would make less if his video wasn't on YouTube. That's like saying a sweatshop worker in China is not being fleeced, even if they earn a pittance, because they'd be making less money working on a farm, for instance...
But when radio stations play a song, potentially thousands of people are listening to it at the same time. In the case of YouTube, the upper boundary is a couple of people crowded around a monitor. How is even an order of magnitude reduction in cost for Google an "excellent deal"?
These same people would be quite happy to charge you 0.22p every time you whistle a copyrighted tune.
Fuck'em. Let them go bust. In fact, it is your duty as a human being to do whatever you can to help them go bankrupt faster, so the world is rid of their rotten business model.
When making an argument, particularly one as controversial as this, it is important to know who you're siding with. And sadly, in this case, you're siding with the bad guys.
Fuck'em. Let them go bust. In fact, it is your duty as a human being to do whatever you can to help them go bankrupt faster, so the world is rid of their rotten business model.
When making an argument, particularly one as controversial as this, it is important to know who you're siding with. And sadly, in this case, you're siding with the bad guys.
Thank god there's still something like a nuanced argument...
swombat, here are some of the "bad guys" you'd like to see getting "fucked", "going bust", and whose business model is worthy of moral opprobrium: http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/comments.html
"Actually, no; the PRS is authorized to negotiate mechanical rights rates on the artists' behalf"
As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
> As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory,
You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, still stands.
> nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
Look, I think you do have a point here, but you are oversimplifying somewhat. What you're not taking into account is that if the PRS orders YouTube to take down the videos, the content will appear anyways as so-called "user-generated content" (although it quite obviously doesn't merit that title) -- the onus is then on content creators to enforce it's IP rights. Should the PRS then push for all of YouTube to shut down and risk massive PR damage, not to mention hurting all the innocent bona fide UGC creators? Should it be forced to incur the costs of policing the content on YouTube, when YouTube itself reaps all the rewards in terms of advertisements? Or should the onus on policing go to the government, or YouTube itself? All of these issues would need to be addressed were the PRS to simply walk away from a deal. Needless to say, each and every one opens up a horrendous can of worms. So while it's true that the PRS has "the option to walk away", it amounts to the option of getting murdered through a bullet to the head or a slit to the throat ;)
You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, still stands.
> nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
Look, I think you do have a point here, but you are oversimplifying somewhat. What you're not taking into account is that if the PRS orders YouTube to take down the videos, the content will appear anyways as so-called "user-generated content" (although it quite obviously doesn't merit that title) -- the onus is then on content creators to enforce it's IP rights. Should the PRS then push for all of YouTube to shut down and risk massive PR damage, not to mention hurting all the innocent bona fide UGC creators? Should it be forced to incur the costs of policing the content on YouTube, when YouTube itself reaps all the rewards in terms of advertisements? Or should the onus on policing go to the government, or YouTube itself? All of these issues would need to be addressed were the PRS to simply walk away from a deal. Needless to say, each and every one opens up a horrendous can of worms. So while it's true that the PRS has "the option to walk away", it amounts to the option of getting murdered through a bullet to the head or a slit to the throat ;)
Well sure, but just because there isn't a solution, doesn't mean Google should foot the bill. The PRS, and organisations like it, face a battle against technology, as the ease at which an individual can pirate content and get away with it is largely proportional to how cheap bandwidth and storage are. Ultimately I don't think they can prevail, as it seems unlikely that current technological trends will stop any time soon.
Google is a figurehead of cheap bandwidth and storage, but ultimately the problems the PRS faces are global trends. Attacking Google is like attacking the snowflakes before an ice age. It's not fair on the snowflakes, and won't do the members of the PRS any good in the long term. Either they adapt to a more hostile climate, or be crushed under the glacier of the information age.
Google is a figurehead of cheap bandwidth and storage, but ultimately the problems the PRS faces are global trends. Attacking Google is like attacking the snowflakes before an ice age. It's not fair on the snowflakes, and won't do the members of the PRS any good in the long term. Either they adapt to a more hostile climate, or be crushed under the glacier of the information age.
Indeed, after reading this line I went straight to the date. I mean, it has all the hallmarks of a great April Fools joke, up to (but unfortunately not including) a rickroll.
> compared this treatment to the "exploitation" of migrant workers in the Middle East.
Oh, how so? Were you at risk of death or physical injury? Were you living in disgusting, slave-like conditions? Were you working 14+ hour days and barely getting enough money to survive?
Oh, how so? Were you at risk of death or physical injury? Were you living in disgusting, slave-like conditions? Were you working 14+ hour days and barely getting enough money to survive?
Or perhaps it was the part where they stole his passport and forbid him leaving or looking for other means of making a living.
How many 'never gonna give you up' tracks were sold on iTunes since Rick Roll versus before Rick Roll?
I bet sales of that song went through the roof.
I bet sales of that song went through the roof.
Unfortunately, it isn't available as a ringback tone.
I think he should pay Google 22 cents for every time they play Rick Astley, because he's getting fre publicity.
a) The figure would be 0.022 pence under the current contract, and 0.22 pence under the legally-mandated minimum per-play charge, not 22 pence.
b) The argument that Google gives him free publicity depends crucially on the assumption that a viewer will go to iTunes and buy either a video or a single after viewing the video. But, and numerous consumer behaviour studies have borne this out, this is in fact not the case. And the reason why is obvious: what's the point of going to iTunes and paying for the video when you can watch it any number of times in YouTube? YouTube replaces demand for the video, it doesn't enhance it. Even if you don't accept the conclusion of the consumer behaviour studies (and it's true that there are a few studies which contradict those findings), the idea that YouTube promotes sales doesn't tally with industry revenues over the last two years in which YouTube's hits for music videos have exploded -- the music industry has seen online growth of, IIRC, 17% or so, but that has been more than offset by decline in CD sales of around 20%. So all in all, people are buying less music. If YouTube is such an excellent vehicle for publicity, where are the resultant increased sales? Over time, this argument becomes increasingly untenable.
I can't imagine that all that many people use Youtube as their music collection repository.
Just because someone listened to a tune on Youtube (or, as is the case for most Rick Astley listens, got rickrolled) doesn't mean that they would have bought the song to listen to it.
I have no sympathy for the music industry. They are monopolistic cartels that have abused the public and the artists for decades. Why are you defending them? Let them all go bust. The world will be a much better place without them.
Just because someone listened to a tune on Youtube (or, as is the case for most Rick Astley listens, got rickrolled) doesn't mean that they would have bought the song to listen to it.
I have no sympathy for the music industry. They are monopolistic cartels that have abused the public and the artists for decades. Why are you defending them? Let them all go bust. The world will be a much better place without them.
Thank you. That was funny.
I'm pretty sure that had you written a tune that got viewed/listened to 150 odd million times (notwithstanding how god-awful it is!), and you'd received 11 pounds for it, you wouldn't think it was so funny.
Imagine if you'd written a game and you put it on iTunes, and you'd observed 150MM downloads, but only got 11 pounds from iTunes. You're telling me you wouldn't feel exploited?
There really is a double-standard at work here. When musicians/songwriters say they're being fleeced, members of this (hacker) community pooh-pooh them, and accuse them of being dinosaurs who just don't get it. When a developer writes an app that gets rejected by the iTunes store, devs are up in arms about lost dev time and the financial implication. Similarly if Google Checkout decides to terminate a developers account and said developer loses pending income.
It's totally natural for groups to look after their own, but one might have hoped that an elite community like Hacker News would be able to recognize this tendency. Sadly, from the evidence I've seen here from posters, whose views on the music industry are, generally speaking, at once flippant, condescending, arrogant, cold-hearted, and ill-informed, this is far from being the case.
Imagine if you'd written a game and you put it on iTunes, and you'd observed 150MM downloads, but only got 11 pounds from iTunes. You're telling me you wouldn't feel exploited?
There really is a double-standard at work here. When musicians/songwriters say they're being fleeced, members of this (hacker) community pooh-pooh them, and accuse them of being dinosaurs who just don't get it. When a developer writes an app that gets rejected by the iTunes store, devs are up in arms about lost dev time and the financial implication. Similarly if Google Checkout decides to terminate a developers account and said developer loses pending income.
It's totally natural for groups to look after their own, but one might have hoped that an elite community like Hacker News would be able to recognize this tendency. Sadly, from the evidence I've seen here from posters, whose views on the music industry are, generally speaking, at once flippant, condescending, arrogant, cold-hearted, and ill-informed, this is far from being the case.
"There really is a double-standard at work here. When musicians/songwriters say they're being fleeced, members of this (hacker) community pooh-pooh them, and accuse them of being dinosaurs who just don't get it."
I think the difference is that some musicians/songwriters expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. By contrast, developers usually expect a particular version of software to generate revenue for a few years at best, and even then there's the expectation that the developer should release patches throughout the lifespan of the software. Indeed, it's becoming increasingly common for software companies to open source old versions, such as Id with its Id Tech engines. When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license?
I think the attitude of hackers is that "We have to continually create new things in order to make a buck, so why should some musicians expect to keep being paid for a song they wrote a generation ago?"
I think the difference is that some musicians/songwriters expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. By contrast, developers usually expect a particular version of software to generate revenue for a few years at best, and even then there's the expectation that the developer should release patches throughout the lifespan of the software. Indeed, it's becoming increasingly common for software companies to open source old versions, such as Id with its Id Tech engines. When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license?
I think the attitude of hackers is that "We have to continually create new things in order to make a buck, so why should some musicians expect to keep being paid for a song they wrote a generation ago?"
weavejester, having seen other comments I really appreciate you having an intellectually honest stab at my contention. But I think you're wide of the mark.
First off, musicians/songwriters don't expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. In the UK copyright expires after 50 years. Granted, that's not a short period of time, but nor is it perpetual.
And while I agree that the software business does entail continuing updates, and while I too applaud idSoftware's policies regarding open-sourcing old versions, there is a fundamental difference between music and software, namely that music is not amenable to small, incremental updates. I mean, what exactly do you propose, that musicians remaster their album every year (they do it every so often anyway, actually!), or add extra overdubs or tracks each year? Surely it's not difficult to see that this approach isn't workable, is it? Do you really want a session musician to go into the studio and overdub, say, trane's solo on So What?!!!
> When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license?
I agree that that would be awesome. But musicians are taking steps in this direction. For example, Kanye West offers downloads of the stems to his music -- that's the music equivalent of providing the source code. So there is movement on this front. And most bands offer some portion of their music for free on their myspaces, so whether or not it's free as in freedom, it is freely available for those who want to listen.
Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties? It strikes me that this is quite similar to music royalties in that all the "work" is done up-front.
First off, musicians/songwriters don't expect their creative works to be a perpetual source of revenue. In the UK copyright expires after 50 years. Granted, that's not a short period of time, but nor is it perpetual.
And while I agree that the software business does entail continuing updates, and while I too applaud idSoftware's policies regarding open-sourcing old versions, there is a fundamental difference between music and software, namely that music is not amenable to small, incremental updates. I mean, what exactly do you propose, that musicians remaster their album every year (they do it every so often anyway, actually!), or add extra overdubs or tracks each year? Surely it's not difficult to see that this approach isn't workable, is it? Do you really want a session musician to go into the studio and overdub, say, trane's solo on So What?!!!
> When was the last time a prominent musician released their old works under a creative commons license?
I agree that that would be awesome. But musicians are taking steps in this direction. For example, Kanye West offers downloads of the stems to his music -- that's the music equivalent of providing the source code. So there is movement on this front. And most bands offer some portion of their music for free on their myspaces, so whether or not it's free as in freedom, it is freely available for those who want to listen.
Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties? It strikes me that this is quite similar to music royalties in that all the "work" is done up-front.
Given that the average lifespan is around 75 years, a 50 year copyright represents the vast majority of a person's adult life. For the artist, I don't think there's much difference between that and perpetuity. And those artists it does affect, such as Sir Cliff Richard, have not exactly been fans of the limit ;)
As for how to apply a continual update model to music, I'm not certain. I'm not a musician, so I couldn't venture a guess. But it seems to me that there isn't going to be a lot of money to be made in future from licensing past hits. The software industry manages okay, but perhaps you're right and music can't use the same model. In which case, musicians need to find another model that works, or slowly be consumed by a world where copying is increasingly cheap and increasingly hard to prosecute.
As for patents, it's my position that people should not be able to patent software. Fortunately for me, that's still the case in the EU.
As for how to apply a continual update model to music, I'm not certain. I'm not a musician, so I couldn't venture a guess. But it seems to me that there isn't going to be a lot of money to be made in future from licensing past hits. The software industry manages okay, but perhaps you're right and music can't use the same model. In which case, musicians need to find another model that works, or slowly be consumed by a world where copying is increasingly cheap and increasingly hard to prosecute.
As for patents, it's my position that people should not be able to patent software. Fortunately for me, that's still the case in the EU.
"Finally, is it your position that the hacker ethos considers it frivolous or morally wrong to collect revenue for patent royalties?"
for software patents, certainly.
for software patents, certainly.
Yes I'm sure all 150 million of those people really wanted to listen to the whole song, and didn't, say, just close the window after 5 seconds.
You raise an interesting point. I'm not sure what YouTube counts as a "hit" -- it's probably as you say just initiating a "view". Let's assume that only 1% viewed the video 'til the end. That's still 1.5MM full views, for which Mr. Waterman received £11. That's still paltry! And, in any case, YouTube certainly knows how many views carried through to the end or close to the end of the video, and as such is in a position to refute Mr. Waterman's claim.
Apples v. Oranges
If you put an app in the app store, you've got a contract with Apple explicitly stating how you share revenue. I can't complain about revenues from the app store if the game I wrote is being pirated outside of Apple's control.
If you put an app in the app store, you've got a contract with Apple explicitly stating how you share revenue. I can't complain about revenues from the app store if the game I wrote is being pirated outside of Apple's control.
> If you put an app in the app store, you've got a contract with Apple explicitly stating how you share revenue.
The PRS and YouTube have an agreement that explicitly states how revenue is shared. So no difference there, your contention notwithstanding. The real difference arises in that a) YouTube gets its money from advertisers rather from the consumers directly (which, IMHO, won't work, in general, in the long run) and b) the amount that the PRS receives is paltry.
> I can't complain about revenues from the app store if the game I wrote is being pirated outside of Apple's control.
Where did I mention the game being pirated? You say that I'm comparing apples to oranges, and as proof, you just made up what I said -- excellent work!
The PRS and YouTube have an agreement that explicitly states how revenue is shared. So no difference there, your contention notwithstanding. The real difference arises in that a) YouTube gets its money from advertisers rather from the consumers directly (which, IMHO, won't work, in general, in the long run) and b) the amount that the PRS receives is paltry.
> I can't complain about revenues from the app store if the game I wrote is being pirated outside of Apple's control.
Where did I mention the game being pirated? You say that I'm comparing apples to oranges, and as proof, you just made up what I said -- excellent work!
Since there is a contract in place, it means one of two thing: 1) Google is failing to keep their end of the agreement or 2) the PRS is taking the lions share.
150M views * .022p/view = 33,000£. I doubt Google is going to risk a lawsuit over that amount, so my guess is the PRS took 32,500£ and divvied out the other 500£ to the various artists (including the writers 11£).
Now, who is doing the exploiting here? Of course, if Google didn't pay the 33,000£, then it is a lawsuit is in order.
Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry.
150M views * .022p/view = 33,000£. I doubt Google is going to risk a lawsuit over that amount, so my guess is the PRS took 32,500£ and divvied out the other 500£ to the various artists (including the writers 11£).
Now, who is doing the exploiting here? Of course, if Google didn't pay the 33,000£, then it is a lawsuit is in order.
Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry.
I must have remembered incorrectly. In fact, I think the deal was a flat rate. I don't think it materially changes my argument that Google is getting an amazing deal for streaming these videos, certainly better than radio stations or similar get. Waterman's £11 for 150MM views is testament to that. And the PRS (a not-for-profit group, btw) is is quite transparent about costs; check out their website.
> Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry
Remember that the context here is a renegotiation! The original deal certainly was very poor for artists, and that's what the PRS is looking to redress. Now, you could say that the old deal was due to poor bargaining. But at the time it wasn't clear how large YouTube would get -- the old adage of hindsight being 20/20 applies here.
As for the Google being the target of a smear campaign -- I admit that this whole debate leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that it was Google who fired the opening salvo by removing the PRS members' content prior to the finalization of negotiations. So at the very least Google is not a shining white knight here.
> Google should not be blamed for the PRS' poor bargaining. Nor should they be the target of what really amounts to another smear campaign by the music industry
Remember that the context here is a renegotiation! The original deal certainly was very poor for artists, and that's what the PRS is looking to redress. Now, you could say that the old deal was due to poor bargaining. But at the time it wasn't clear how large YouTube would get -- the old adage of hindsight being 20/20 applies here.
As for the Google being the target of a smear campaign -- I admit that this whole debate leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that it was Google who fired the opening salvo by removing the PRS members' content prior to the finalization of negotiations. So at the very least Google is not a shining white knight here.
You never mentioned games being pirated. I'm saying that your analogy of Artist -> YouTube plays doesn't fit Developer -> App Store since the artist doesn't have an explicit agreement with YouTube as an iPhone developer has with Apple.
If the artist is represented by PRS who has an explicit agreement with YouTube, then he has even less grounds for complaint against YouTube (if they're holding up their end of the deal) otherwise it's PRS who's shafting this guy.
If the artist is represented by PRS who has an explicit agreement with YouTube, then he has even less grounds for complaint against YouTube (if they're holding up their end of the deal) otherwise it's PRS who's shafting this guy.
> 150 odd million times (notwithstanding how god-awful it is!)
I'm sure he has made far more than 11 pounds on the Rickrolling phenomenon.
Sure, since you say so.
As feedus points out above, it might have driven iTunes sales. I'd like to know those numbers as well.
> it might have driven iTunes sales
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, more studies have arrived to the opposite conclusion than to this conclusion.
Also, again as I've pointed out elsewhere, the notion that YouTube plays drive iTunes demand doesn't square with the reality that over the last 10 years (the last two of which have seen an explosion in the number of music video hits on YouTube), net music sales (online minus CD) have fallen. If YouTube really drives iTunes sales, then why haven't they materialized?
> I'd like to know those numbers as well.
I imagine you want to see his tax return also? My point is that your immediate assumption is that he's a liar. I don't see that this a fair assumption -- after all, what evidence do you have that Pete Waterman is a liar? Other than that he works in the "evil" music industry, one of the "bad guys" as a juvenile poster here has pointed out?
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, more studies have arrived to the opposite conclusion than to this conclusion.
Also, again as I've pointed out elsewhere, the notion that YouTube plays drive iTunes demand doesn't square with the reality that over the last 10 years (the last two of which have seen an explosion in the number of music video hits on YouTube), net music sales (online minus CD) have fallen. If YouTube really drives iTunes sales, then why haven't they materialized?
> I'd like to know those numbers as well.
I imagine you want to see his tax return also? My point is that your immediate assumption is that he's a liar. I don't see that this a fair assumption -- after all, what evidence do you have that Pete Waterman is a liar? Other than that he works in the "evil" music industry, one of the "bad guys" as a juvenile poster here has pointed out?
His situation is unique: "Never Gonna Give You Up" was part of an internet phenomenon. I'm not commenting on the general case - which the studies apply to. I'm commenting on his case.
You are on the defensive to the point of it getting in the way of communication. I don't think he's a liar, and I don't want to invade his privacy. I do think he's reacting emotionally and not rationally. I would like to test this assumption, and iTunes sales are the simplest method I can think. My assumption is that more people would purchase the song on a whim online because of the internet meme than buying a CD in the store. This is why I'm not curious about CD sales.
You are on the defensive to the point of it getting in the way of communication. I don't think he's a liar, and I don't want to invade his privacy. I do think he's reacting emotionally and not rationally. I would like to test this assumption, and iTunes sales are the simplest method I can think. My assumption is that more people would purchase the song on a whim online because of the internet meme than buying a CD in the store. This is why I'm not curious about CD sales.
Oh god, not another attack from redmond disguised as retarded journalism.
Yeah, I'm sure he was working hard full-time for those royalties. Not that he doesn't deserve royalties, but I think it's a falsification to consider waiting for a royalty check to come in, "work".