The reasons for this are structural rather than personal. The initial explosion of rickrolling from 2007 to 2009 used unauthorized uploads of the music video — uploads made by users who did not own the rights and who were not paying licensing fees. The YouTube Content ID system, which allows rights holders to claim revenue from videos that use their music, was not universally deployed in the early years of the platform’s mass use. The royalty rates for legitimate streaming were, in the early era of YouTube’s commercial operation, extraordinarily low relative to the view counts being generated.
Pete Waterman’s disclosure of approximately £11 in royalties from the first major wave of rickrolling fame — reported in April 2009 — is a striking illustration of this disconnect. He was one of the three credited writers of the song, one of the producers, and one of the rights holders for the PWL master recording. The song was being played millions of times per day on the world’s largest video platform, and his financial return was approximately eleven British pounds.
Astley’s own situation was slightly different in its complexity. He had not written the song. His financial interest was in his performance royalties — the share of income that accrues to the performing artist from the use of their recorded performance. In the early streaming era, these were also minimal. His statement that his YouTube royalties from the song amounted to approximately $12, made in an interview in August 2010, must be understood in its specific context: it was the state of play in 2010, not the current situation, and the economic structure of streaming has changed significantly since then.