Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Youtube Idle

Youtube Pulls Original "Rickroll" Video 97

Posted by samzenpus
from the keep-rolling dept.
@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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Youtube Pulls Original "Rickroll" Video

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @12:15PM (#31273926) Journal
    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: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Cake roll FTW [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DeadDecoy (877617)
      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.
      • 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.

        • by elrous0 (869638) *
          I'm pretty sure it would be hard to mistake goatse as anything but an intentional prank.
    • Plus I've always thought that a much better terrible video is the actual numa numa video. [youtube.com]

    • I enjoyed Rickrolling the Boise Tour de Fat [newbelgium.com] cycling event in 2008:

      Great event every year, and great fun.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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, fo

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      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.

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

  • How do you Rickroll this video?
    • by headkase (533448)
      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 ;)
  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @12:42PM (#31274420) Homepage

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

  • 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.

  • 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

    • 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

        • by Knara (9377)
          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.
          • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:47PM (#31276520) Homepage Journal

            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?

            • by Knara (9377)

              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 (Score:5, Insightful)

                by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:20PM (#31277014) Homepage Journal

                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: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Knara (9377)

                  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 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 eff

                    • by Knara (9377)

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

                    • by Dputiger (561114)
                      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.
              • by schon (31600)

                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.

                • by Knara (9377)

                  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.

              • 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 ra

                • by Knara (9377)

                  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.

                  • 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 la

                    • 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.
                    • by unity100 (970058)

                      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.

                    • by unity100 (970058)

                      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.

                    • "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.
                    • 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.

                • by jonadab (583620)
                  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.
            • "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 affair
          • 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.
            • by Knara (9377)

              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

          • How long should the Shakespeare estate have continued to receive royalties for Romeo and Juliet?
    • by TheLink (130905)
      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?
    • by CaseM (746707)

      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.

  • ...until this is available in Theora!
  • 1988 (Score:4, Informative)

    by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @01:46PM (#31275550) Homepage
    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.

    • by Knara (9377)
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:53PM (#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!
      • by Globe199 (442245)

        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.

      • 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.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:23PM (#31278826) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Or rickroll is slashdotted?

  • 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.

You're already carrying the sphere!

Working...