6 ms·

KISS frontman on P2P: "Sue them all"

25 points by twymer 16y ago

ZeroMinx 16y ago
Yea I'm sure Mr Simmons wasn't swapping cassette tapes when he was a kid. These people have short memories.. Sharing is caring
- hugh3 16y ago
  Gene Simmons was born in 1948, and cassette tapes didn't come into widespread consumer use until the mid-70s. So, no, I'm sure he wasn't swapping cassette tapes as a kid. He was probably saving up to buy records.
  - VBprogrammer 16y ago
    But he probably was going to music venues to listen to records without the appropriate public performance rights.
digitallogic 16y ago
Old blowhard hard wants to use the law to preserve his revenue stream rather then innovate. News at 11.
- jrockway 16y ago
  The funny part is that he is innovating to increase revenue, but that his "sue everyone" plan will kill off that stream, too. He wants to have KISS-branded TVs. Fine. But if nobody listens to KISS, then the brand will be worthless. If he starts suing people who know what is brand is, he'll be tarnishing its reputation. Nobody cares about legally right, they care that he sues 7-year-olds and grandmas. So then the brand is destroyed, and the branded-crap revenue stream falls off, too. Artists should not run businesses.
  - leftnode 16y ago
    Neither should executives, apparently. At least in the music industry.
ajaxian 16y ago
Fun facts: Gene Simmons was born as Chaim Witz in Haifa, Israel, and at one point planned on being a rabbi.
- aspir 16y ago
  Fun fact 2: Gene wasn't the frontman, Paul Stanley was. :) Fun fact 3: I'm submitting for dishonorable discharge from the KISS army because of this article :(
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jcromartie 16y ago
Now that's the real spirit of rock and roll!
- jonursenbach 16y ago
  Damn the <strike>people-who-use-P2P-to-legimately-purchase-music-after-doing-a-taste-test</strike> man!
tmcw 16y ago
Old, rich rock stars are apparently more 'old, rich people' than they are 'rockstars.'
fossuser 16y ago
Distribution is no longer a task that requires an industry to carry out. Just because at some point in the past you were able to sell a service that people needed doesn't guarantee that service will always be a viable revenue stream. The record companies are still useful for promotion, but not too much else. Trying to keep an old business model around through litigation when there is no need for it, simply because it was profitable at one point, is a waste of time.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  The problem has less to do with the companies than it does with us. As Eric Schmidt said in his Atlantic interview, 70% of the laws are written by lobbyists. The masses clearly aren't outraged enough by this process, and industries with decrepit business models get away with using the legal system to protect themselves. If people came out for fairer copyright laws in the same numbers that the Tea Partyers do, don't you think some politicians would take heed?
imgabe 16y ago
KISS was always a business proposition. They never cared about making music and I don't think they ever pretended to.
- hugh3 16y ago
  What does that even mean, as a criticism? Has not KISS made better music than thousands of other bands who "cared about music" more? I'm pretty ambivalent about KISS myself, but they make music which many people enjoy and which is technically pretty good by rock 'n roll standards, so what does it mean to impugn their motives?
  - Corrado 16y ago
    No, this is not criticism. KISS have repeatedly stated that they are in it for the money, not the music. If they don't get paid (well) they wont play, it's that simple. They don't "jam" with other bands, they know the songs that they perform and that's about it. They are the Microsoft of the music industry.
  - imgabe 16y ago
    His intention was to give advice to aspiring musical artists. Someone who cares about the music they make, rather than just the money they can get for it, might not have the same interests as KISS and might find those interests hindered by suing all their fans.
- brudgers 16y ago
  Kiss was a Rock n' Roll band with all that entails. Business was one part of it, Music another. Sex a third. Their live performances are what made them, and it is no coincidence that Alive was their breakthrough album. It was a strategy later followed by Peter Frampton and Cheap Trick. Edit: They weren't the hottest band in the land when Alive was recorded. But a year later they were.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 16y ago
The music industry should realize that piracy is a good thing. Nobody listens to KISS (or pirates KISS), but because there are no good numbers on piracy, they can blame piracy instead of their own inability to create good music. If they eliminate piracy, then they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.
siglesias 16y ago
A little miffed here at what seems to be the HN consensus. Stealing is not okay. It's not sound ethical reasoning to point to the fact that someone is wealthy, technophobic, or might not otherwise have fame to justify not paying for their content. Piracy is not the only way to sample content, nor is it the only way to acquire DRM-free music online. EDIT: Interesting that some folks are acting like they are not advocating privacy, only revolt over how stringent the fines are. 1) That's clearly not what the consensus is. Most of the top comments to this forum are ad hominem attacks on KISS over the quality of their music, or their somehow "not getting" how piracy HELPS them (which is hilarious). 2) The expected value of your fine is reasonable. It's the probability of you getting caught times the fine. That in essence is your calculus when you decide to download an album for free instead of paying for it, that your expected loss is still less than the cost per CD. Seen in this light the fine is set appropriately.
- mrkurt 16y ago
  Murder is also not okay. No one's talking about murder or stealing, though, they're talking about copyright infringement.
  - leftnode 16y ago
    Thank you for making this point, because it's the crux of the argument. If I steal something from you, I deprive you that object. So, when I steal your physical car, you no longer have a car (that you could resell or use). When you download a song/album, you have a copy of it. It doesn't deprive the original owner/artist from continuing to sell it.
- i80and 16y ago
  I just looked through the comments again, and... I can't find anybody who says that stealing is OK. The issue at hand is that the response is often grossly out of proportion and just destructive to both parties.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    What about the guy who said "The music industry should realize that piracy is a good thing."

25 points by twymer 16y ago

Yea I'm sure Mr Simmons wasn't swapping cassette tapes when he was a kid. These people have short memories.. Sharing is caring

hugh3 16y ago
Gene Simmons was born in 1948, and cassette tapes didn't come into widespread consumer use until the mid-70s. So, no, I'm sure he wasn't swapping cassette tapes as a kid. He was probably saving up to buy records.
- VBprogrammer 16y ago
  But he probably was going to music venues to listen to records without the appropriate public performance rights.

digitallogic 16y ago

Old blowhard hard wants to use the law to preserve his revenue stream rather then innovate. News at 11.

jrockway 16y ago
The funny part is that he is innovating to increase revenue, but that his "sue everyone" plan will kill off that stream, too. He wants to have KISS-branded TVs. Fine. But if nobody listens to KISS, then the brand will be worthless. If he starts suing people who know what is brand is, he'll be tarnishing its reputation. Nobody cares about legally right, they care that he sues 7-year-olds and grandmas. So then the brand is destroyed, and the branded-crap revenue stream falls off, too. Artists should not run businesses.
- leftnode 16y ago
  Neither should executives, apparently. At least in the music industry.

ajaxian 16y ago

Fun facts: Gene Simmons was born as Chaim Witz in Haifa, Israel, and at one point planned on being a rabbi.

aspir 16y ago
Fun fact 2: Gene wasn't the frontman, Paul Stanley was. :) Fun fact 3: I'm submitting for dishonorable discharge from the KISS army because of this article :(
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

jcromartie 16y ago

Now that's the real spirit of rock and roll!

jonursenbach 16y ago
Damn the <strike>people-who-use-P2P-to-legimately-purchase-music-after-doing-a-taste-test</strike> man!

tmcw 16y ago

Old, rich rock stars are apparently more 'old, rich people' than they are 'rockstars.'

fossuser 16y ago

Distribution is no longer a task that requires an industry to carry out. Just because at some point in the past you were able to sell a service that people needed doesn't guarantee that service will always be a viable revenue stream. The record companies are still useful for promotion, but not too much else. Trying to keep an old business model around through litigation when there is no need for it, simply because it was profitable at one point, is a waste of time.

slantyyz 16y ago
The problem has less to do with the companies than it does with us. As Eric Schmidt said in his Atlantic interview, 70% of the laws are written by lobbyists. The masses clearly aren't outraged enough by this process, and industries with decrepit business models get away with using the legal system to protect themselves. If people came out for fairer copyright laws in the same numbers that the Tea Partyers do, don't you think some politicians would take heed?

imgabe 16y ago

KISS was always a business proposition. They never cared about making music and I don't think they ever pretended to.

hugh3 16y ago
What does that even mean, as a criticism? Has not KISS made better music than thousands of other bands who "cared about music" more? I'm pretty ambivalent about KISS myself, but they make music which many people enjoy and which is technically pretty good by rock 'n roll standards, so what does it mean to impugn their motives?
- Corrado 16y ago
  No, this is not criticism. KISS have repeatedly stated that they are in it for the money, not the music. If they don't get paid (well) they wont play, it's that simple. They don't "jam" with other bands, they know the songs that they perform and that's about it. They are the Microsoft of the music industry.
- imgabe 16y ago
  His intention was to give advice to aspiring musical artists. Someone who cares about the music they make, rather than just the money they can get for it, might not have the same interests as KISS and might find those interests hindered by suing all their fans.
brudgers 16y ago
Kiss was a Rock n' Roll band with all that entails. Business was one part of it, Music another. Sex a third. Their live performances are what made them, and it is no coincidence that Alive was their breakthrough album. It was a strategy later followed by Peter Frampton and Cheap Trick. Edit: They weren't the hottest band in the land when Alive was recorded. But a year later they were.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jrockway 16y ago

The music industry should realize that piracy is a good thing. Nobody listens to KISS (or pirates KISS), but because there are no good numbers on piracy, they can blame piracy instead of their own inability to create good music. If they eliminate piracy, then they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

siglesias 16y ago

A little miffed here at what seems to be the HN consensus. Stealing is not okay. It's not sound ethical reasoning to point to the fact that someone is wealthy, technophobic, or might not otherwise have fame to justify not paying for their content. Piracy is not the only way to sample content, nor is it the only way to acquire DRM-free music online. EDIT: Interesting that some folks are acting like they are not advocating privacy, only revolt over how stringent the fines are. 1) That's clearly not what the consensus is. Most of the top comments to this forum are ad hominem attacks on KISS over the quality of their music, or their somehow "not getting" how piracy HELPS them (which is hilarious). 2) The expected value of your fine is reasonable. It's the probability of you getting caught times the fine. That in essence is your calculus when you decide to download an album for free instead of paying for it, that your expected loss is still less than the cost per CD. Seen in this light the fine is set appropriately.

mrkurt 16y ago
Murder is also not okay. No one's talking about murder or stealing, though, they're talking about copyright infringement.
- leftnode 16y ago
  Thank you for making this point, because it's the crux of the argument. If I steal something from you, I deprive you that object. So, when I steal your physical car, you no longer have a car (that you could resell or use). When you download a song/album, you have a copy of it. It doesn't deprive the original owner/artist from continuing to sell it.
i80and 16y ago
I just looked through the comments again, and... I can't find anybody who says that stealing is OK. The issue at hand is that the response is often grossly out of proportion and just destructive to both parties.
- hugh3 16y ago
  What about the guy who said "The music industry should realize that piracy is a good thing."