Slashdot Mirror
Youtube Pulls Original "Rickroll" Video
@VentureBeat writes "Youtube pulled the original 'Rickroll' video Wednesday night. Don't worry, after a lot of email about the loss of such an important piece of cultural history, Youtube put it back up, saying that they're never gonna say goodbye to the video that's had over 30 million views."
he only made $16 off the revival
there's something wrong with this picture
what is wrong is that ANYONE expects to make money off a 20 year old song
legally of course, he has grounds to complain. morally and philosophically, the fact that he feels he has any basis to complain is a peek into something very, very wrong with this world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While there are many other wtf videos that could be used as prank material, it has what few other videos have: recognition as a prank video. If you were to show some random video, it wouldn't have the same 'gotcha' effect because the audience of the prank might not recognize what you're trying to do in time for the punchline. You could certainly try other videos, but I think you'd be the only one in on the joke.
i'll be sure to contact him, so he can collect from you everytime you open your door or flush your toilet
does that sound ridiculous? intellectual property subscribes to special rules that don't apply to real world goods?
ok, then i'll find the architect who designed your house
oh, yu say he was adequately reimbursed so he has no right to claim anymore?
ok, well the guy wrote "monster mash" was well reimbursed for performing his song decades ago
right?
if the architect has no right to claim you owe him every time you open a window, on what basis does the guy who wrote "monster mash" expect you to pay him money when you play the song DECADES later?
"Yeah, copyright enabling people to control their works and creators getting paid for other folks utilizing their works is just a crime against God and man"
you say that with sarcasm
i say the exact same thing, in complete seriousness
you honestly want to defend a system that says the grandchildren of the guy who wrote sherlock holmes stories or the song "happy birthday" deserve money for that. you honestly want to defend that notion?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Regardless of what everyone else says about that song, I've always liked it. Not sure how it became synonymous with crappy pop (and there's PLENTY of that to go around). Now, the comparison to Luther Vandross by the NYT? That is downright criminal!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
its called technological progress. the gun did away with centuries of feudal caste systems, the nuclear bomb stopped the cold war from becoming a hot war, the printing press enabled the enlightenment and the middle class, which destroyed the political powers of religions, etc
and now, the internet has destroyed the copyright clause and 300 years of western legal tradition. its just that some fools like you don't see it yet
laws created when publishers were a small gentleman's club cannot be realistically enforced on hundreds of millions of poor, media hungry and technologically astute teenagers worldwide who have more distributor power each individually than bertelsmann plus sony plus warner brothers plus the rest did in 1985
wake up, fool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it