Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Youtube Pulls Original "Rickroll" Video

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the keep-rolling dept.

Music 97

@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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Amazing How Long It's Gone On (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273926)

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 [youtube.com] 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 [youtube.com] 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 [youtube.com] . Be very careful and prepare yourself if you plan on watching the Rifftrax of it [youtube.com] . I was in very serious physical pain from laughing so hard.

"Oh, hai Slashdot!"

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31274026)

Cake roll FTW [youtube.com]

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (2, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274800)

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.

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

SoTerrified (660807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276436)

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.

Bingo. If you use this video, the response is... "I've been rickrolled! Ha ha ha, they got me!"
If you use some other video, the repsonse is "Hmm. This link must be going to the wrong video. This isn't what I expected. Probably a typo in the link. Oh well, let's see what's new on /."

Well, that's my response anyway.

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278156)

I'm pretty sure it would be hard to mistake goatse as anything but an intentional prank.

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274836)

Plus I've always thought that a much better terrible video is the actual numa numa video. [youtube.com]

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276624)

"This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is no longer available in your country."

Wow... I didn't realise they were still blocking access to people in the UK.

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (4, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31321278)

You've just been RIAA-rolled

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277242)

What I find so interesting about this is that, in the world of web sites where a "prank" is usually going to redirect you to some kind of screaming monster or a gaping anus, the rickroll is remarkably unonfensive.

It's like one day 4chan said "Oh, sure, we can scar you, give you nightmares, make children cry. But our *best* idea is to send you a music video. Because, at heart, we're pretty decent folk."

You know, as a meta-prank, that's actually pretty scary. Like the Devil doing something nice for you, for reasons you can't understand...

Rule 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277784)

Rule 4: On the Internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.

Mod parent up (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31325658)

Where are all my mod points? :(

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31398790)

where a "prank" is usually going to redirect you to some kind of screaming monster or a gaping anus, the rickroll is remarkably unonfensive.

what is this "gaping anus" you are talking about?

Re:Amazing How Long It's Gone On (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31429436)

Dropping in two of my favorites:

Paintroll'd [youtube.com]

Nirvana vs. Rick Astley [youtube.com]

Of course, as one of those kids who actually had Mario Paint and messed around with it, I greatly appreciate anything ihasmario does. And its quite creepy how well Smells Like Teen Spirit goes together with the "Never..." lyrics.

It's back up again. (1)

MirthScout (247854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273936)

And has it back up again before anyone can get the story posted.

Re:It's back up again. (0, Redundant)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273952)

... Whoosh, the sound of a Rickroll going over your head.

Which poses the question: (2, Funny)

llvllatrix (839969) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273958)

How do you Rickroll this video?

Re:Which poses the question: (1)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31273988)

It is safe to say that most of the people posting here have been rickrolled.

Re:Which poses the question: (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274340)

Yeah, I got RickRolled by NPR this morning.

Re:Which poses the question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31274056)

Like this. [youtube.com]

Re:Which poses the question: (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279632)

How do you Rickroll this video?

By posting a link that actually points to a DNF demo?

Re:Which poses the question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31283608)

Hmmm... link it to an Astley vs. Nine Inch Nails mashup [youtube.com] ?

Never gonna let you go (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31274250)

Never gonna say goodbye..

You just got Rick Rolled by Youtube... (4, Funny)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274278)

SUCKERS!

Re:You just got Rick Rolled by Youtube... (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276574)

OK, this got modded down to oblivion but think about it: the video is *back up*, millions of slashdotters going there to see the "video is no longer available" message just got rick-rolled. Even if unintentional. This single comment just made my day ;)

Too much bandwidth?? (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274420)

That baby must have sicked up terabytes/min at its peak. You can probably trace global warming back to Rick Astley if you try.

Re:Too much bandwidth?? (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276234)

In the future, the "Astley" will become the standard unit for measuring carbon emissions from computing. eg.: I switched to DC power for our servers and saved 47 Astleys annually.

Re:Too much bandwidth?? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278208)

I already blame Rick Astley for pretty much everything else that's wrong with the world--might as well add that to the list.

Re:Too much bandwidth?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31299978)

Too late - we blamed him back in the 80's when he first surfaced.

Only Topman and Burton welcomed him.

Re:Too much bandwidth?? (2, Interesting)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31310138)

Well, we know that:

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

I'd hate to know how much CO2 was used for Rickroll.

Re:Too much bandwidth?? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31429466)

Rick Astley's hair spray probably contributed more to global warming than RickRoll views.

Not really up (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274422)

This video contains content from Vevo, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

Won't work from here. At least now they're blaming it straight on Vevo, though.

Re:Not really up (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274480)

Nevermind, I confused the Vevo version with the original.

I like him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31274698)

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.

Re:I like him (1)

Justtaint (301311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274812)

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.

Re:I like him (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31275558)

HEY NOW! I resemble that remark. >:P

-uso.

Re:I like him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31275798)

I don't get the reference.

Re:I like him (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277176)

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.)

Re:I like him (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277390)

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???

Re:I like him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277772)

But Kylie is hot. Does that mean--oh God, oh God--that I have a thing for Rick? Please make it stop!

REVERSE RACISM (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31417218)

Actually, when a woman dresses as a man, that's just drag.

peter waterman complains (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31274770)

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

Re:peter waterman complains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31275250)

I was going to mod you as troll, simply because I don't agree with your opinion, but then I saw who you were and realized you really were trolling. So I say, go for it!

20+ Year Old Songs Still Make Money (1)

Pollux (102520) | more than 4 years ago | (#31275940)

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.

which is (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276114)

fucking ridiculous and indefensible

Re:which is (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276284)

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.

who built your house? (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276520)

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?

Re:who built your house? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276834)

The builder doesn't have copyright on my domicile. That, in itself, eliminates any relevance your reply may have had.

If you have a problem with the existence of copyright, all you need to do is get the US Constitution and ~300 years of western legal tradition changed. Should be a piece of cake.

not a problem (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277014)

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

Re:not a problem (2, Informative)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278382)

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

Your Cliff's Notes version of history is cute, but not entirely accurate. I'd like you to point out how religion and religious organizations no longer have any political power, for example.

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

Yup, done away with. That's why you can still be sued for copyright infringement and lose. Obviously, the entire concept is ancient history.

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

You obviously don't understand the progress of copyright law in the western world since the Statue of Anne. Do some research, learn a little bit. Then come back and we can talk. And when you do, try to foam at the mouth a little less. It's hard on the carpet.

yes, they can sue (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278668)

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

Re:yes, they can sue (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286670)

Your mistake is generalizing teenage bittorrent addicts to the rest of the population of the world.

Re:yes, they can sue (1)

Dputiger (561114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31300622)

I dunno. I'm amused by the concept of thieves as "slow, weighted down." I'm imagining a hunting spree in Times Square, while these more agile, feathered dinosaurs pirates laugh on by.

Re:yes, they can sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447022)

It only takes one counter-example to demonstrate that the sacrosanct copyright law is not that enforceable and accepted all over the world.
And, personally, I don't cry a river it is not.

Re:yes, they can sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448312)

So you are happy when copyright law stopped the producers of bootlegged vids and music selling on the street corner but are unhappy that it prosecutes people for doing the same thing with files over the internet? Hmmm - it appears your aversion to copyright laws has a lot more to do with your belief you should not have to pay for anything (you don't like the bootleggers 'cause you had to pay them) than any deep philosophical point that you try to portray.

Re:not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31333508)

Your Cliff's Notes version of history is cute, but not entirely accurate. I'd like you to point out how religion and religious organizations no longer have any political power, for example.

Seriously? Have you ever studied the history of religions? There is an absolutely massive difference in the power of the Catholic church before and after the printing press.

Surely you realize that in the 11th century, the church did things like dictate who the leaders of countries would be, wage their own private wars, shape peoples lives from cradle to grave. Have you ever heard of a little thing called 'The Crusades'? Do you seriously think that a major nation would go to war with say Isreal, because the Pope demands it? Much less a dozen major nations, as they did in the crusades.

What about the inquisition, where the pope could send somebody to a region, who had full power to execute anyone, peasant or king, if that person was found lacking in faith? Do you think the church has that kind of power now?

Religious organizations have less than 1% of the power they used to wield, not just for Catholics, but across all religions.

Re:who built your house? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277264)

The builder doesn't have copyright on my domicile.

That's exactly the point. WHY doesn't he have copyright on your domicile?

That, in itself, eliminates any relevance your reply may have had.

Wow - are you really that stupid?

If builders suddenly started clamouring for a copyright on housing, would you be as supportive of them as you are for songwriters? If not, then you're a hypocrite.

A homebuilder has just as much right to 70+ years of royalties on houses they build as a songwriter has to 70+ years of royalties on songs they write.

Re:who built your house? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278326)

Just because you don't understand what can and cannot be copyrighted, doesn't mean those concerns are arbitrary.

Learn about copyright. Learn about licensing. Things will be a lot more clear to you when you do.

where is LOGIC in your argument ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278916)

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.

Re:where is LOGIC in your argument ? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286694)

The architect can copyright the design, which can be licensed by the builders.

They don't have copyright on my particular house.

Please learn the difference, then come back.

still failing to get it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31301026)

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.

Re:still failing to get it (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304204)

Dude, there is nothing simple about arches and roof's please take a look at the history of acrhitecuture. You have some valid points in your rants about copyright and patents but they are totally obscured by your zealotry.

Re:still failing to get it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304624)

the concept of arch, and roof is simple. extremely complicated and unique arches, roofs being possible to create does not change that fact. the concept of a roof, concept of an arc, stays the same, and their purpose too. therefore, they can be patented. just like single click.

Re:still failing to get it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304640)

that was what i was saying, and the point was that. if you let this concept be, it goes all the way till claiming ownership of entire base concepts and principles in the end. for, there is nothing separating derived concepts and base concepts, the former are only versions and results of the latter, and in most cases more complex meshs of many of the latter. technically they are the same.

Re:still failing to get it (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31327146)

"technically they are the same."

No, technically they are different otherwise they wouldn't be a derivation they would be a copy. Sure, at a high enough level of abstraction an ICBM and a spear may be considered the same idea but I've yet to see a javelin thrower launch a spear into LEO.

maaaan. you are a hardcore conservative. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31345244)

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.

Re:where is LOGIC in your argument ? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31381068)

If the architect who designed your house had copyright rights on it, I guess you'd have to pay him royalties if you ever built another house based on the same design.

Re:where is LOGIC in your argument ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395310)

Okay, I'll accept a copyright on my home by the architect ... I will purchase my home, and use it, in compliance with copyright laws in existence. I agree not to distribute duplicate copies without the express written authorization of the copyright holder. If I transfer ownership I agree not to keep duplicate copies. I promise not to use more than 1 copy at a time.

Re:where is LOGIC in your argument ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396676)

these are your promises. what you have to do will be defined by law in the end. just remember how some software companies are trying to push pay for use licenses, and trying to find ways to force previously paid customers to those licenses.

Re:who built your house? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304156)

"ok, then i'll find the architect who designed your house"

Actually if you buy a spec home from a builder they do have copyright on the plans. If you pay an architect to draw up your ideas as a plan then you hold the copyright. In the first case the builder uses the copyright to stop you from taking the plan to a competitor who can build it cheaper because he doesn't employ architects. In the second case nobody cares, you are free to choose your prefered builder.

I don't like the current state of affairs, but in what fantasy land do you expect investors to sink $100M into a movie and then give it away? Childish arguments like the one in your sig do nothing but provide the MAFIAA with the ammunition to make even more draconian laws.

Re:which is (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279378)

When the copyright can often extend significantly after the original artist's death? Yeah, I consider that a problem. Copyright is meant to spur creative development. What is more likely to do that? Giving an artist an avenue where they can produce one popular work and rest on their laurels as long as they want, or forcing them (via copyright expiration) to put in more work and actually create more art? I guess that I just don't believe in someone receiving payment for work that they don't do.

Re:which is (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31286656)

Yes, this is the common perception.

The reality is that copyright more often is used by the little guy against big/medium guys. Just yesterday there was a Twitter storm about how Hot Topic had items that were clearly ripped off by one of their artists from an identifiable indie source. Within 1 day, Hot Topic had pulled the item from their online stores and were starting the process to pull it from their retail stores.

The reason why? Copyright.

You and those like you can go on and on about life+70 years and what not, but clearly you don't create anything, because then you'd know that actual creative people have an urge to create, not to create and then "rest on their laurels". It's an extremely rare person who does that on their first try, at that. Copyright is there so that someone else doesn't get to take the easy way around and just swipe someone else's stuff.

I'm sorry that copyright prevents you from getting free stuff.

The Shakespeare estate (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441240)

How long should the Shakespeare estate have continued to receive royalties for Romeo and Juliet?

Re:peter waterman complains (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277016)

Revival?

How many of the viewers actually wanted to watch his video in this "revival"?

He thinks he should get paid more than 16 bucks because pranksters were _inflicting_ his video on very many unsuspecting people?

lol: class action lawsuit (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277054)

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

Re:peter waterman complains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279636)

Still peddling that bullshit, trying to whore yourself out for some karma points again, I see.

You made the same comment, almost verbatim, a few days ago in another forum. I guess that's all you have to say on the topic. Get off the bandwagon. Learn to think for yourself, you cheap bastard.

I told you you couldn't defend your argument.

Re:peter waterman complains (1)

CaseM (746707) | more than 4 years ago | (#31287398)

The way copyright laws are set up now we've created a new aristocracy that need not create anything of value, they need only keep licensing the works of their dead spouse/father/mother/whoever in perpetuity. These people are leeches in every sense of the word, taking from society and offering nothing in return. Copyrights should exist only as long as long as the copyright holder lives. No more, no less.

Maybe it is time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31275024)

for us to organize, to call up radio stations on April 1st, requesting the song "Never Gonna Give You Up" to be played.

My username, in md5, incase I ever wish to claim credit: 33852d32794ee88b896b49de0d275c2e

Re:Maybe it is time... (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31275596)

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 ;)

Re:Maybe it is time... (2, Funny)

Colz Grigor (126123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281156)

An iTunes Gift Card that will only download "Never Gonna Give You Up"?

Can't wait... (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#31275114)

...until this is available in Theora!

Nice try... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31275434)

Sorry, but I am *not* going to follow the link to TFA...

1988 (3, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31275550)

A present-day time traveler going back to 1988 might be surprised to read this New York Times article that extols:

The hottest young English pop star of the moment is Rick Astley, a 21-year-old singer from a suburb of Manchester, whose debut single, ''Never Gonna Give You Up'' (RCA), has sold a million copies in Britain and reached No. 1 ranking in almost every other European country. The song is now rapidly climbing the United States pop charts and is the country's best-selling 12-inch single.

The record's most striking quality is Mr. Astley's voice - a rich, throbbing baritone that suggests Tom Jones crossed with Luther Vandross. It is definitely not the kind of voice one expects to hear on a contemporary dance record. Since ''Never Gonna Give You Up,'' Mr. Astley has gone on to score two more major English hits, ''Whenever You Need Somebody'' (the title song of his debut album) and a revival of ''When I Fall in Love,'' which re-creates note for note the classic Gordon Jenkins arrangement for Nat (King) Cole's 1957 recording.

Mr. Astley is the latest discovery of the successful producing and songwriting team of Stock-Aitken-Waterman, which also produces the group Bananarama. The team has popularized a streamlined homogenized pop-disco sound with an unruffled high-gloss surface that stands in marked contrast to the more angular, rhythmically inventive dance-funk of Prince and his disciples.

''I'm influenced by a lot of black American artists,'' Mr. Astley said in a recent telephone interview. ''Luther Vandross is one of my favorites, and I like James Ingram and Jeffrey Osborne.''

At least for now, Mr. Astley is content to have his voice packaged by Stock-Aiken-Waterman.

''I like dance music,'' he said. ''I'm happy doing what I'm doing and want to get more deeply into it.''

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.

Re:1988 (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276358)

Man, they give short shrift to Stock-Aiken-Waterman [wikipedia.org] . They wrote a ridiculous amount of music for a ridiculous number of people in the 1980's and early 1990's. I suppose that maybe at the time the article was written, the volume of their work wasn't as publicly known.

Re:1988 (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276608)

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!

Re:1988 (1)

Globe199 (442245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31276730)

Agreed. This is a great song. I'm old enough to remember when it was popular on MTV. The title track from this album ("Whenever You Need Somebody") is even better.

Astley does have a great voice.

Re:1988 (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278120)

The song is fine. There are tons of completely unbearable 80's pop and this one is among the few that stand out today. it's the cheeziness of the video that makes it work. The acrobatic bartender is just so out of place. It doesn't make any sense and is a mismatch to the theme of the song.

Re:1988 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280212)

This video that I recalled from elsewhere and (unsurprisingly) found on youtube has some fun facts about the bartender (and some other amusing stuff too):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HrSN7176XI

He had a hangover and spent two hours sleeping on a table whilst Rick's manager and the director argued about whether Rick should have his sleeves rolled up or not.

Rickroll take-down gets TV coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277744)

I just saw a report on the take-down this morning. I think the reporter had a real good take on the subject, and a concise history (he even mentions 4chan). Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Re:Rickroll take-down gets TV coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277956)

I'll see your predictable Rick Roll and raise you... this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIITT0WU9Gg

Prepositions Exit for a Reason (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278702)

Youtube pulled the original 'Rickroll' video ON Wednesday night.

If you omit the preposition "Wednesday night" is left with no relation to the rest of the sentence. It sounds like it has just been thrown in there.

I'm no grammar fanatic but this sentence is so bad it's like a slap in the face to the reader.

I dont get this rickroll thing (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278826)

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.

So does it mean that Slashdot is rickrolled? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282766)

Or rickroll is slashdotted?

Honestly, it wasn't the song (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31325912)

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.

Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31338676)

While the cool kids use the internet to pull off pranks. The nerds use it to discuss nonsensical crap.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?