Hacker News Reader

"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?"

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

  > 150 odd million times (notwithstanding how god-awful it is!)

That's the funny part of it, people didn't want to listen to it in the first place. It's strange he didn't thrive on it and kill the meme like Hasselhoff did. Wait a minute...

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?

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.