Out of touch..
 

Pete Waterman: 'I was exploited by Google' - Telegraph

The first two paragraphs are unbelievable.

Re: Out of touch..
 

i dont care how out of touch he is because if it wanst for him we wouldnt have kylies backside plastered over magazines and billboards:D

Re: Out of touch..
 

as his fortune was estimated at 47 million in 2004, i dont give a rats if he gets screwed, he won't be visiting the "Soup Kitchen":rolleyes:

Re: Out of touch..
 

I just shows that 154million people didn't think it was worth paying money for

Re: Out of touch..
 

Yep..and just goes to show that the richer some people get.. the more greedy they get.
If anything of mine had 150 million views then I would be very happy with that..in context £11 ain't to bad.. It's a large donor and 6 cans of lager!

Re: Out of touch..
 

The original rickroll had nothing to do with youtube... the whole point was a site you couldnt escape from because onExit it showed lyrics of the songs. Journalists ****-up once again.

Re: Out of touch..
 

anyways..this is the same bloke from the Who.. he played the giutar..he got done for noncing about with little kids!

Re: Out of touch..
 

Oh bless him, what a shame. Greedy git.

Re: Out of touch..
 

he's a ******, never liked him anyway

Re: Out of touch..
 

well you have all said it,

Re: Out of touch..
 

Poor sod!! Perhaps he should have stuck with the Railways!!

Best Regards - Taggy

Re: Out of touch..
 

soz.. that is Pete Townsend..the nonce..and anything I said was not the view of Accy web..( it was my bro talking in the 3rd person) ;)

Re: Out of touch..
 

It's heartbreaking, we should all send him a few quid and why do radio stations pay to play records? If they refused the record companies would be banging on the doors begging them to play their records.

Re: Out of touch..
 

Sob!

Re: Out of touch..
 

Admittedly Pete Waterman is already a wealthy man, but that really isn't the point.

Millionaire or pauper, there's a principle at stake.

If he co-wrote the song, it should be protected by copyright.

After all the owners of YouTube/Google aren't exactly short of a bob or two either, and they are making money off Waterman's work. Especially if they're just paying eleven quid, for a song that's been watched 154 million times.