
'I was exploited by Google' - rglovejoy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/5130427/Pete-Waterman-I-was-exploited-by-Google.html
======
zacharydanger
_"...because I earned less for a year's work..."_

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".

~~~
jodrellblank
Why _does_ he deserve royalties?

It probably took him, oh I don't know... less than two months to co-write, _22
years ago_.

~~~
seertaak
> Why does he deserve royalties?

I take it you don't approve of software patents either? In the interest of
consistency, that is.

~~~
nkurz
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?

~~~
seertaak
> 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.
;)

~~~
nkurz
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.

------
weavejester
"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.

~~~
seertaak
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.

~~~
swombat
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.

~~~
lucumo
Thank god there's still something like a nuanced argument...

------
mr_justin
> 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?

~~~
ricree
Or perhaps it was the part where they stole his passport and forbid him
leaving or looking for other means of making a living.

------
feedus
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.

~~~
briansmith
Unfortunately, it isn't available as a ringback tone.

------
swombat
I think he should pay Google 22 cents for every time they play Rick Astley,
because he's getting fre publicity.

~~~
seertaak
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.

~~~
swombat
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.

------
alecco
Thank you. That was funny.

~~~
seertaak
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.

~~~
weavejester
"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?"

~~~
seertaak
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.

~~~
weavejester
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.

------
TweedHeads
Oh god, not another attack from redmond disguised as retarded journalism.

