>Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Really? Why not:
"Psy Makes $8.1 Million DESPITE Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style"
Really? Why not:
"Psy Makes $8.1 Million DESPITE Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style"
The original (and the one I prefer) implies that Psy's success was due in part of the infringing parodies, because of the network effects created by these parodies.
Your headline implies that the copying is still bad for him, and without I he would have been even more successful, but in fact that's no the case. If he had cracked down on copyright violations, his video probably wouldn't have gone viral (i.e. celebs saw it on YouTube in copyright violation form, they tweeted it, it went viral).
Now it may be that permissive distribution was key to the success but it is not shown by this article.
Is this a lot of money for the most viewed video in the history of the Internet and the most popular song worldwide?
Now you can go from someone mostly unheard of to a global superstar outside of traditional channels. Now, if you are already someone signed on a big label and have a big name, then 8.1M may not be huge, especially for how popular it was.
What old days? Dick Clark days? Because thousands of acts have been to the number one in the 80's and 90's without payola, just emerging virally (either as one hit wonders, or as more established artists).
>Chances of an unsigned Korean artist getting there. 0.
That might be in the US. In the UK and Europe there were lots of cross-cultural hits from unexpected sources, including third world and different languages.
Heck, 8 million dollars is what a #1 single would cash in just in England back in the day.