Never Gonna Give You... Royalties

Never Gonna Give You… Royalties

April 11th, 2009 by alyx · 6 Comments · fail

rick-astley-google

This is only tangentially LOLFed, but it’s the weekend, so… let me (rick)roll with it? If you are here you probably know this meme, too. From UrbanDictionary, the rick roll, defined:

Rick Rolled: to be fooled by a mislabeled video link that takes you to an extremely 80s video of Rick Astley. Example: The link said it was the latest Jessica Simpson + Zhang Ziyi + Halle Berry sex tape, but I was rick rolled.

Imagine for a moment that it is your song, Rick Astley’s magnum opus “Never Gonna Give You Up,” played tens of millions of times on the Internet. Used to mock Scientologists. Cued whenever someone wants to play a cruel joke. You wrote that song, pouring your blood, sweat and tears into its creation. Working your fingers into nubs writing and rewriting each sonnet. You are Pete Waterman, and every word of that song is your creation. In what, perhaps, could you take solace? Well, first, in the knowledge that Rick Astley is the face of this mockery, and that you, the author, can still go to the grocery store mostly incognito. But, other than that. Perhaps you could at least rest secure in the knowledge that those millions of plays over the last couple years should get you a fat royalty check?

No.

Despite his millions of plays on YouTube, Google is beating Peter Waterman like a red-headed stepchild:

The 62-year-old said the Rick Astley classic Never Gonna Give You Up, which he co-wrote and which was the subject of a YouTube craze last year, had earned him just £11 from Google, despite being viewed 154 million times.

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.

£11 for a year of Rick Rolls. Highway robbery!

“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.”

…because poorly executed royalties contracts and indentured servitude are about on par with one another. I wanted to feel badly about the whole state of affairs, since he does have intellectual property rights in the song… and then he had to go and say that. Somebody get Amnesty International on the phone about this right now. The oppressive Google monolith has Pete Waterman in shackles.

Pete, this one’s for you:

(h/t to TonyS for the story idea)

6 Comments so far ↓

Fartles // Apr 11, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Li’l pasty faced english boy singin’ with a big ol’ black voice! sha-na-na!
Jason // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I was feeling bad for him until I got to the 47 million pounds part. Isn’t that, like, $90 million?
alyx // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Prob closer to 70 mil with exchange rates the way they are these days. But yeah.
The Reformed Broker // Apr 12, 2009 at 10:25 am
id rather be rick-rolled than Tiffany-Tumbled
TRB
TonyS // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12 am
LOL to be fair, the royalties listed work out to about $22. I’d be furious if it was my song. He has every right to be pissed, but Winning Public Opinion: He’s doin it rong.
riceroni // Dec 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As a musician/songwriter/producer/engineer myself I can see his beef. But as he said it’s poorly executed royalties/publishing contracts to blame not Google inc. It’s not like Google is going to say “Awww, I know in reality you deserve much more than the £11 a year we’ve paid you for the endless entertainment and dismay your song has delivered on our YouTube servers” But holy FUCK! If were worth $72.6 million I really wouldn’t sweat it! Or at least I most definitely wouldn’t be likening myself to poor exploited laborers practically working for slave wages.