Author of Rickrolling song says Google 'exploited' him

The man who co-wrote "Never Gonna Give You Up," the 1980s song revitalized by the Rickrolling phenomenon on YouTube last year, is accusing Google of exploiting him.

The music video, featuring singer Rick Astley, has been viewed more than 150 million times on YouTube but Pete Waterman earned about $16, just enough money to buy a CD.

The cult of Rickrolling helped generate more than 150 million views of "Never Gonna Give You Up" but only $16 for song's author.

(Credit: YouTube)

Waterman told U.K publication The Telegraph, that he earns more from local radio than YouTube. He also compared himself to the "exploitation of foreign workers in Dubai."

"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," Waterman told the paper.

Several U.K. artists have criticized Google and YouTube for allegedly not compensating artists well enough. YouTube has stopped presenting music videos in Britain because the company says a royalty rights group there is asking for unreasonable rate increases.

"We absolutely believe that artists should be compensated fairly," said a YouTube spokesman. "But how much the artist gets paid is between the artist and the label."

YouTube has also ceased playing music videos in Germany after a royalty rights group there began asking for a rate increase.

Rickrolling was the name used to describe sending links to the music video of "Never Gonna Give You Up" but disguising the name of the link so the receiver wouldn't know it was coming.

[jbcahill]

From the article "....has been viewed more than 150 million times but Pete Waterman earned about $16..."

And was way overpaid...I hate that song with a passion.

[Dalkorian]

Blast - you beat me to the punch. How can I get paid for "work" that I did 20 years ago and still annoys people today?

[farker1]

That's $16 more than he would have earned without Google. And for those of you who don't know PW, he of Stock Aiken and Waterman: http://www.pwl-empire.com/news.html

[Dalkorian]

Sorry, doesn't help. Still have no idea who this bozo is or why he thinks he should still be getting paid for creating something 20 years ago that still annoys the world today.

Oops, sorry. CO-wrote. He didn't create anything himself really, did he? I guess if I was that much of a loser I'd be crying about it too.

[rapier1]

I'd thinking it would be fair to say that you've never actually created anything then.

[xenoxero]

This is a classic example of how the public doesn't understand the economics of online media. Even assuming the Ads that ended up around this video had decent metrics for social sites, and assuming every view of the video was on a youtube hosted page with an ad present, the profits from this single video aren't really significant.

[idfubar]

Who said they are?

[gggg sssss]

guess he needs a label with a clue.

[t8]

He now has $16 to hire a lawyer with.

[winstein]

The media ad models like print, radio, TV, and the Internet are based on how much advertisers are willing to pay. If advertisers are willing to pay $$$$$$$$ for "sponsoring" the video, then I'm sure the author will get paid. Just look at MTV, they don't show music videos anymore.

[nickh2]

Stock, Aitken & Waterman had their day back in the '80s with their awful, insipid music performed by talentless one-hit wonders. They made millions with it.

Without an internet phenomenon aimed at directing the unsuspecting to a video for the sole reason that it featured a truly dreadful song that most people hoped they had finally heard the last of, how many would have watched this video voluntarily? Not 150 million, that's for sure.

Enjoy your 16 bucks, Mr Waterman. You certainly didn't deserve it.

[Dalkorian]

Justice would be if the world made a class action lawsuit against Waterman for $1.6 BILLION for "pain and suffering" for having to endure that mindless garbage more than once over the last 20 years.

[NickH]

I share you distaste in music, but the fact that SAW made millions reflects a reality that millions of people did actually like it (yes, hard to believe).

Its true that with YouTube that song would have (hopefully) sunk into oblivion, but lets not forget that with out content, where would YouTube be? Again, 150 million people have derived some dubious pleasure that that song, and $16 to its co-author is also not correct - Google are profiting from the ads.

You argument seems to me like saying "becuase I think this is valueless material, I'm not prepared to pay to use it - EVEN THOUGH I have used it". The correct stance is "becaue I think this is valuess material, I will not use it".

[He_And_Him_Studios]

Sigh, seriusly, I hate this "It's my music!" crap on YouTube. They just need to shut up, and be happy with the fact that their songs are popular.

[Timeaisis]

You, sir, are an idiot. They kind of wrote it. Last time I checked being popular doesn't make them any money. Every artist on youtube has a right to complain when their not being compensated for their own material. How would you feel if everyone stole something you worked hard to make?

[Dalkorian]

by Timeaisis April 14, 2009 8:36 AM PDT
How would you feel if everyone stole something you worked hard to make?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was stolen? What makes you think anyone "worked hard to make" that garbage, annoying tune? Unless you think shoving your nose into a pile of cocaine is "work" ...

How would I feel if everyone stole something I made 20 years ago and already made millions off of it? I'd feel pretty happy, knowing my work was really worthwhile. But that isn't the case here, is it. It wasn't stolen by any stretch of the definition. If he worked hard at CO-WRITING that, he's mentally handicapped and should be happy he made any money off of it. He CO-WROTE it 20 years ago and is crying because he's not making enough money off it today - I need a job like that!

No Timeaisis, you are the idiot.

[LamendolaM]

"How would I feel if everyone stole something I made 20 years ago and already made millions off of it? I'd feel pretty happy, knowing my work was really worthwhile."

...uh huh...

[kjam_productions]

"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,"

Uh, let me see, you wrote this song back in the 80s; it went to #1 and you made a pile and still receive royalties everytime some lame retro radio station plays the song. Seems to me you've made more than your fare share for all your "hard work" twenty years ago. Another reason why copyrighted music should be allowed to expire after a certain period of time an go into the public domain.

[DumDumJohn]

Maybe the reason he made more on local radio play because of the YouTube play. How much more money is in your pocket from the resulting CDs sales? Rick Ashley performed the song on national TV in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade BECAUSE of the YouTube play. You got coverage all of over the Net because this! How much would you PAY a publicist for this coverage?!
All this was the 2nd best coup after Journey's score with the Soprano's ending. So don't shoot the gift horse!

[TV James]

If you mean "the first two seconds" were viewed 150 million times, then that figure is accurate. Pretty sure many of those were not complete views, were they?

[Dotherightthing2]

You don't like it , do the right thing get a lawyer and sue, or shut up

[JohnnyMcNinjatits]

I guess he doesn't get that his song is terrible and when the video is viewed people think "Oh man, why did I click that link to this terrible song."

[Dotherightthing2]

It is not wether his song is good, bad or whatever,
If he doesn"t like the way he is being treated, get a lawyer and do something
about it instead of whining Obiously he dosent have much of a case as he
hasn't been able to find legal councel and has resorted to seeking solas
in the Internet community

[monkeyfun14]

Everytime that song is played a baby is punched.

[lauriemonk]

LOL

[lauriemonk]

I'd like to point out that Rickrolling was actually SPAM. As such Waterman owes everyone a slice of their time wasted on this talentless nonsense... does he care? No! he already took the money to the bank..

[wangbang]

Exactly--it's not like 150 million people said to themselves, "Man, I gotta listen to that song!" It was a goof and people were tricked into it. And as so many have pointed out, the vast majority closed it within the first 5 seconds.

[michael_0001]

Sounds like he got $16 AFTER his label took their cut. The real question is how much did the Label Company get paid?

Next, the 150 million views were NOT complete viewings. How many people clicked 'close' during the first 5 seconds?

[Magicland]

Google should be suing him, because it's more likely that they lost money on the whole rickrolling thing. They had to pay for the bandwidth that served up the song 150 million times, and it's doubtfut that they made a dime in advertising because nobody had the page up long enough for any clickthroughs. Nobody got rickrolled and stuck around once they found out what it was.

[knowles2]

Well the song was release in the 80, 28 years ago presuming he got a say a thousand quid per year for the song, he has made 28,000 thousand pounds, more than enough for the 6months work it took to record, I actually doubt he did any more than a few weeks worth of work on this. 28,000 dollars for few weeks work that sounds alright to me. If he short of cash, go on tour or do a other job a for a living.

[Sam Papelbon]

you write a song for the enjoyment of seeing others enjoy listening to it, not to make money. it's people like him that make the music industry the joke that it is. greedy bastards forgot what real passion is.

[rapier1]

You don't know any professional musicians or artists do you? Are there greedy musicians? You bet. Just look at Gene Simmons. But there are also musicians and artists who are just trying to make a living doing something that they are good at. They deserve fair compensation for their work.