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."
It's amazing how far this has gone. I saw a 'live' rick roll on some Macy's parade on the internet and I've even seen really ingenious Rick Rolls that I must admit have been humorous. But I'm a little disappointed we've been stuck on one video as there are so many others to Rick Roll people with.
Tommy Wiseau's The Room was shown on Adult Swim as an April Fool's day joke and if you think Rick Astley is cheesy you should check out the acting in this film. Be very careful and prepare yourself if you plan on watching the Rifftrax of it. I was in very serious physical pain from laughing so hard.
"Oh, hai Slashdot!"
My work here is dung.
And has it back up again before anyone can get the story posted.
How do you Rickroll this video?
SUCKERS!
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
That baby must have sicked up terabytes/min at its peak. You can probably trace global warming back to Rick Astley if you try.
No sig today...
Won't work from here. At least now they're blaming it straight on Vevo, though.
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
I don't know why people pick on Astley. I think he has a great crooner's voice. Not many singers today have his ability.
Because when the Devil created Gingers, he only gave the ability to croon to Astley.
...until this is available in Theora!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLq_T-3z9co
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Astley's videos were a big thing at the time, coming just two years into MTV's decline that was precipitated by Viacom's purchase of it and MTV still had some of its original appeal of showing a) videos that were b) popular.
HEY NOW! I resemble that remark. >:P
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Eh, I still enjoy a good rickroll now and then. For my little sister's birthday, I'm giving her a card that looks perfectly normal and serious from the outside, but when you open it, it plays the first minute of "Never Gonna Give You Up" and has an Astley photo inside.
It'll also include a gift card, of course; I'm not that mean ;)
Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
what is wrong is that ANYONE expects to make money off a 20 year old song
Bobby Picket, writer and singer of the hit Halloween song "Monster Mash," earned royalties year after year on the song. I couldn't find an article to source from online, but my local paper once had a quick bio on the man. If my recollection serves me correctly, in his later years, he was still collecting about $30,000 per year in royalties.
fucking ridiculous and indefensible
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Great event every year, and great fun.
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
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
peter waterman owes us all for writing a song which has been uninvitedly inflicted on each of us and destroyed each of our personal well being
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't know why people pick on Astley.
Because he doesn't really exist! Seriously, he's Kylie Minogue in reverse-drag. You think it's a co-incidence that they both have the same record label and producers?
Try this: grab *any* Kylie Minogue song. Slow it down by 40%. Listen to the voice.
(And if you think I'm trying to be funny here - I'm dead serious: try it. They're the same person.)
Oh my god, you're right! Think about it: when was the last time you saw Kylie Minogue and Rick Astley in the same place at the same time???
Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
and bankrupt the occasional soccer mom for what her kid's friends do on her computer or the occasional grandma with an unsecured wireless router
and in what way does that stop pirate bay? in what way does that stop that kid in johannesburg from providing free movies to that kid in novosibirsk or omaha, or anywhere else?
simple, obvious truth: when copyright law governed the expensive, weighty slow effort of setting up vhs duplicators or cd presses, and then salespeople on street corners, copyright law was effective, because pirates were slow and weighted down with costs and easily trappable and punishable
but now its every teenager with a modem who can point and click
and, perhaps most importantly, seamlessly over national borders. go ahead, pass the most stringent privacy raping, freedom of expression destroying, internet slowing legislation you can buy from your congress whores. and then what? that kid in philadephia is getting an encrypted, obfuscated, steganographed, sparsely delivered movie and music and bookf ile from another kid in sao paulo. how does your law apply in brazil? it doesn't. game over
so you tell me how copyright law is enforceable in this environment, i'm all ears
or maybe you should accept the death of copyright law: its simply unenforceable
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
maybe because i was a teenager when this song came out, and the song was a chart topper. maybe it was compliant with music tastes of that time. i cant just understand what is so hilarious or odd about this video, and what the point of 'rickrolling' is.
Read radical news here
so, the architect does not own copyright on your house.
WHAT IF HE DID ?
whats there from preventing copyright/intellectual property application to ANY idea or concept or creation ?
NOTHING. if enough private interest parties lobby enough, laws will be amended to make them applicable. you have been thinking that it was normal not to have copyrights on house designs or other creations because they were JUST NOT BEING APPLIED, whereas they can.
so, will it be something logical, something defensible, something rational to have such laws then ?
very probably you will find this rather hard to stomach - architects having ongoing royalties on your house every year you use it. and this being incorporated in law.
and it is. you are just incapable from comprehending you are accepting copyrights on 'creative' works, music, software and so on, because those have been enforced laws up to this point. had they not been in existence, you would find proposition of them being applied equally ridiculous.
so then, wake up to the fact. something being put into law does NOT mean that it is logical, civil, modern, and even acceptable. copyrights, patents are such stuff. once you start to hand out 'ownership' of ideas and concepts, the world goes upside down.
Read radical news here
An iTunes Gift Card that will only download "Never Gonna Give You Up"?
Or rickroll is slashdotted?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
design, license, copyright, patent, its not about 'learning' its about thinking. you are telling me to 'learn' the difference in between copyright and design, however you are incapable of understanding that all these concepts are created by litigation, and can be changed, amended, transformed, and new ones added.
these are all abstract concepts.
the only thing that creates and enforces them, and decides what to enforce and what not, and what is enforceable and valid for what and what is not is the law. and law, can be made.
if legislation is passed to allow renewable licenses for architectural designs, it will become applicable.
if someone successfully litigates to the end that because the law was just passed recently, s/he/they are being slighted and their 'work' uncompensated in comparison to recent contracts, the previously made and 'sold' architectural designs can also be subject of reparations.
if they successfully litigate, they may ask you to remove/demolish certain parts or all of your house, because your house 'infringes' on one of their later designs, newly copyrighted/patented.
given the shittiness and stupidity of american system, and the track record of patents they have awarded in patent office, in such a situation simple concepts like 'arcs' and 'roofs' can even be patented and litigated.
Read radical news here
Where are all my mod points? :(
Anonymous Coward
It was that feeling when you heard the percussive intro. You were like "WTF that is not what I was expecting!!!!!! ... WAT! Why are they dancing, are they laughing at me???"
The intro to the song made it the best Roll'd video ever. I think it's going to be hard to find one so embarrassing.
The funny thing is, once you hear Rick Astley singing you realize he is actually a really good vocalist.
ill get to the point straight.
ABSTRACT concepts can be REDEFINED.
meaning, 'derive', 'derivation', 'copy', 'intellectual property', ALL of these concepts can be modified and amended. there are no hard coded, unchangeable versions of these. these are not natural concepts. these cant be quantified. these cant be sampled from nature.
therefore ALL can be changed. if you want to see this in action, just check your country's laws on various matters. any law starts with definitions of terms and concepts it covers. you will see that throughout law's history, many of those concepts had been modified, and amended as to their definitions.
copy is copy in TODAY's sense and understanding, which was defined some way back. derivation is the same. if someone redefines them in laws and this gets hold, their meaning and application will also change.
Read radical news here
Actually, when a woman dresses as a man, that's just drag.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
How long should the Shakespeare estate have continued to receive royalties for Romeo and Juliet?