digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gene Simmons on File Sharing: "Sue 'em off the face of the Earth"

billboard.biz — "Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MrBabyMan, on 11/15/2007, -31/+951***** KISS.
    • t4k3n, on 11/15/2007, -17/+82..but KISS saved santa
      • notque, on 11/15/2007, -10/+7And a theme park!
        • Tomchei, on 11/15/2007, -5/+4They defeated the Phantom. I believe that Gene had an evil twin in that movie.
      • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -5/+13That was back in the 70's and Santa is dead now, Sorry to break the news to you
      • Twoodge, on 11/15/2007, -3/+24Still, ***** KISS.
      • timusca, on 11/15/2007, -1/+8That DOES NOT ROCK!!!
      • se1zure, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2They can KISS my ass.
    • PhantomRogue, on 11/15/2007, -6/+266Well Gene, you just lost a bunch of fans from the new Generation. Enjoy your trek into Obscurity.
      • btgoss, on 11/15/2007, -2/+132Trek? Listen, here's rule number 3. IF you have a family based reality show on a minor cable network, your trek is over. You have arrived.
        • thcobbs, on 11/15/2007, -25/+3"minor cable network"

          riiiiiiiiight
        • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -2/+25A&E Network...

          Enough said.
          • astrotrain, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Asshat & Eldery Network....

            Yeah sounds like Gene got too old and big for his spandex..good thing I can still enjoy the 70's Kiss...
          • mitbac, on 11/15/2007, -2/+13by downloading it cuz I sure as hell ain't gna buy it now
        • cmorwhat, on 11/15/2007, -3/+20dont forget about his nickelodeon cartoon! man that is SOOOO metal. nicolodeon is like satan incarnate and *****.
          ive always thought kiss was a bunch of fags dressed up in tights with painted faces playing sellout party metal. ***** them i wish i could rip gene simmons tongue out and sodomize him with it
      • diggduggjoe, on 11/15/2007, -11/+12Sounds like Gene has made the complete conversion to being a Republican. Art? ***** it! Profit is where it is at. I expect him to argue for chastity next!
        • deaconyermouf, on 11/15/2007, -5/+21yeah, greedy republicans. That's why the recent house bill forcing colleges to police piracy (lest they lose federal funding) is being sponsored and pushed by *Democrats* (Rep. George Miller, D-CA, and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-TX, specifically).

          When you make retarded blanket statements, at least base them in fact.
        • cawpin, on 11/15/2007, -2/+17You think Gene hasn't ALWAYS been about the profit?
          • thcobbs, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6All you have to do is ask and he'll tell you that he is.
        • nihilite, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4yeah. this is a partisan issue. way to go. you forgot your "Ron Paul would never allow this to happen" spiel.
        • diggduggjoe, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Wow, no humor, guys? Most guys become more conservative as they age. That is all i was saying. All Republicrats are the same, simple whores. You agree with his idea to confiscate peoples cars over a single song? Forfeiture laws are wrong, but it is fine for the RIAA just steal a $150-200k house for the loss of a $1 song? I do not take Gene serious for the comment he made.
      • Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8This has little to do with Republican vs. Dem and more to do with the money side of both parties vs. the populist side of both parties.
        (It would be correct to say that the Dems tend to have a stronger populist presence right now via the progressives, yet there are Dems that will gladly suck up corporate money (Hillary anyone?). That's why I tend to like Edwards, Kucinich, and Dodd.)
      • happyfundave, on 11/15/2007, -1/+15KISS has a fan base in the new generation?!?!
    • warcin, on 11/15/2007, -22/+8I thought the normal order was Kiss than *****, but that's just me.
      • astrotrain, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2Actually it Kiss then Foreplay (for such a long time) then ***** (the pain away)
        • Spuy767, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2Dugg for boston reference.
          • starbird, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Dugg both for same....

            ....but to continue, you could Cool the Engines afterward...
          • nihilite, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3dugg for peaches reference
    • Chewie67, on 11/15/2007, -67/+24Come on. You people are ridiculous.

      He made his living selling music. If someone is taking it without paying for it, how do you expect him to feel?

      If someone walked into your house and took your TV, how would you react? Would you say "No problem. I have a lot of money, I'll just buy another?" No, you'd be pissed -- no matter how much money you make.

      You have to look at it from his point of view.
      • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -7/+22Have you seen his office? Or how about his home?
        Believe me... Gene and the rest of KISS are certainly not hurting for money right now.
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/15/2007, -8/+66More like:
        "If anyone came into your house and made a copy of your TV and then left."
        • ben162005, on 11/15/2007, -2/+20If you really want a copy of my Daewoo 25" TV from 1994 I guess thats fine with me...
        • KlogereEndGrim, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10Actually it should be more like, if someone made a copy of the television you displayed in public.
      • MaynardJK, on 11/15/2007, -9/+23You're a ***** idiot. Nobody "stole" his music. They copied it.

        If someone walked into your house and made an exact copy of your TV, how would you react? Would you say "No problem. I still have my tv, now this guy who may or may not have bought one in the first place has one as well". Yes, I would.
        • hiikeeba, on 11/15/2007, -13/+14How about this, then: What if someone would do the same job you do for half the pay and your employer hired them instead? They aren't stealing the job, just copying what you do.
          • bjornski, on 11/15/2007, -1/+18They already do that, it's called H1-B visas.

            And apparently corporate America is JUST FINE with it.
          • Fordi, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1I've already dealt with this. I moved into a position that can't so easily be replaced. If an immigrant student wants my job, he can have it; my particular line of work is difficult to do well, and in demand. I can find more work. But that student had better be *able* to do my job - otherwise (and this has happened) I'm going to get a call in a week asking a million questions.

            I don't usually respond, mind you, but those calls are a bit annoying.
        • betterth, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15@hiikeeba Uhh that does happen. All the time. Welcome to the real world?
          • hiikeeba, on 11/15/2007, -14/+8Exactly, and we're building a fence on the border to prevent it.
        • Dush, on 11/15/2007, -7/+6Here's the better analogy.
          Someone comes up with a way to start copying Sony tvs and gave them away for free so that no one ever needed to buy them from Sony anymore.
          You don't think Sony would do something about that?
          Or say someone comes up with a way to copy off a video game from the cartridge and starts giving them away so that people didn't need to buy them from Nintendo.
          You don't think Nintendo should be upset at that and try to do something about it?
          • NiteMayr, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14But this DOES happen, companies and others do this all the time. That's why there are ARE other electronics companies. The only way SONY can maintain it;s monopoly on certain technologies is to copyright it's own ideas so that no one else can make money off of them. Thus no non-sony Blu-Ray w/o Sony getting a cut, etc.

            The difference in this is that we are talking about intellectual property and not physical goods. Gene would very much like to have at least 1 to 2 cents from every song that Kiss sells, but when someone gets a Kiss song for free Gene gets zilch. That is the crux of his problem with it. Songwriters, Performers, Writers, Artists, etc who produce non-durable items face this problem every day. The rationale is that copying kills their their income.

            Let me digress with an anecdote; I've written over 600 articles of varying length as well as multimedia tutorials and training manuals for my former employer. I see exactly Zero dollars for each time someone reads them or benefits from their content. I was paid for the production of the content and the value they added to their business, but I've seen them reprinted in other forms and re contextualized in other mediums. As a content creator I see no residual value in my goods produced; whereas Gene does.

            So, what is the crux of this argument then FOR music sharing? I can state that with no equivocation; without sharing Kiss would not be half as popular as it is. Not even a third. If Gene or the rest of you forget how you got interested in at least some of the cultural goods you have latched onto in your yeas let me remind you of your former adolescent selves; and how you friends let you borrow and listen to or read or watch all manner of media in order to influence your tastes. No one was making extra profit from those teenage media sharing events and that is what Gene wants to eradicate.

            What Gene and the rest of the Content Production folks should really look towards is people who make PROFIT from the sharing of media and ideas. Those persons who produce durable copies for resale and profit are actual criminals who need to be stopped. If there is no profit in coordinated piracy (which is what Gene really should be caring about) then the only people that are left are fans and taste makers, who are essential to the Content Producers ongoing success.
          • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5why is he bing dugg down for making a good point? you should digg for comment value, not because you agree or disagree. i'll probably get dugg down too, but digging him down for making a good point is dumb.
        • lharrod, on 11/15/2007, -7/+6I made the same analogy "Dush" did, but over on reddit, and I got slammed so fast it made my head spin. It's sad that almost no one thinks copying music is wrong in any way whatsoever. Are we so spoiled that we've developed a sense of entitlement about everything? "I have the right to obtain your products for free!"
        • artisresistance, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5If your job is "stolen" by someone else for less pay:
          a) You probably aren't doing a very good job to begin with.
          b) You're in a position that's expendable.
          c) Your employer is crap and you shouldn't be working for them anyway.
          d) All of the above.
      • edrift101, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8I don't think that analogy is quite right.
        • astrotrain, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Must have lost something in the translation between the fish and the television box.
      • Somnabot, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Stole? I think you're in the wrong place. THIS IS DIGG!!!

      • Fafnir43, on 11/15/2007, -6/+12So this justifies suing people into oblivion who don't have the funds to defend themselves how?

        Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of an artist's income comes from tours and merchandise, which get both get significantly boosted by free music, so it's often in an artist's rational self-interest to allow downloading in the first place; ignoring the fact that a lot of downloaders go on to buy; ignoring the fact that a lot of people only pirate to avoid the industry's draconian anti-piracy measures; even ignoring the fact that good ol' Gene is losing pennies and has millions upon millions of dollars; you're still left with the unavoidable problem that if someone gets sued, guilty or not, they're *****. Very, very few people have the money to defend themselves against the RIAA for any length of time, not to mention the fact that if they defend themselves and lose (possible given the RIAA's legal funds) they'll get bankrupted due to the insanely high maximum damages. Oh, and if they win, they'll probably have spent as much on legal costs as they would have on the original settlement.

        It's legal vigilanteism, plain and simple. I don't download music, I don't believe downloading music is right, but I'd consider it one hell of a lot more moral to download music than to give one ***** dime to the lowlife scum that comprise the RIAA.
        • lharrod, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2If matter replicators were invented (ala Star Trek), and we could make replicas of anything, it would be scary. We'd start distributing to each other free food, clothing, cars, TVs, furniture, free EVERYTHING, and we'd somehow justify it as if it were some kind of rebellion, like "Hey! I won't accept your way of doing business any more! I have the right to obtain your products for free!" But it's *****. The truth is, we just want free crap.
        • Lythium, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2A guy with the usename "Fafnir" using the term "draconian"... I dunno, that just vastly amused me. It helps that the post was great ;)
      • ZeRux, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2RIAA sues dead people too. Now look from THEIR point of view.
    • JediMindTricks, on 11/15/2007, -28/+6FINALLY someone said it!
      • zydeco, on 11/15/2007, -22/+9Yeah, unfortunately it's what this crowd doesn't want to hear. They've grown up freeloading music and other content, and won't have it any other way from now on. You can call Simmons anything you want (scroll down and sample the bile). Call him an *****, call him greedy, but you can't call him a liar.
        • g3r4, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9I can because he says the "pay what you want" model won't work. It already has. And if more people released their music that way (DRM Free, Listenable Bit Rate), I'd gladly pay.
          • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6who says it works? cause one already established band did it? as an overall business model, it hasn't proven itself yet.
          • zydeco, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4Cookie for the guy with a clue. Radiohead can do it and walk away with a few million, how about that new band playing the bar down the street? It's not a business model unless it works for everyone. The most effective one, like it or not, is to make everyone pay to acquire content.
          • andycr512, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5zydeco: It's a more effective business model for the band down the street than the current RIAA one. It's almost impossible to get signed - how is that better for the band down the street? It isn't.
      • cbreaker, on 11/15/2007, -2/+19But he uses the word THEFT and it's NOT THEFT. It's copyright infringement, and it's *completely different.* If I copy your CD, you still have it. Therefore it's not theft.

        You cannot directly link my copying your CD with a lost sale of said CD. I probably would never have purchased it.

        All this talk of lost music sales, and there's NEVER been a reduction in music sales since the first day Napster came onto the scene. Never. The sales numbers have ALWAYS gone up. With the advent of the new pay-for services like "newNapster" and iTunes Store, sales have actually increased significantly.

        So don't believe any of this *****. The music companies make hand over fist and music sharing has opened up a new world of discovering new music. Just because VP of Sales Joe Smith from MegaCorp says "Well, we SHOULD have made 700 Billion, not 675 billion" doesn't mean it's true.
        • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2um, you're wrong...music sales have declined every year. physical sales are declining and digital sales are increasing, but physical sales are decreasing at a faster rate.
          • Monk22, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3i would venture a guess to say because most people are sick of buying ***** music.
    • ivandir, on 11/15/2007, -10/+2Yes ***** kiss right on the tongue.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/15/2007, -5/+80I just want to rock and roll all night
      and steal music every day
    • mentalsticks, on 11/15/2007, -3/+44Comeon, we've got to bear with this guy. He needs the money. He still hasn't had that gold plated shark tank installed.
    • OwdenBowden, on 11/15/2007, -38/+11I have been a KISS fan for years. Love the Music and the Marketing as well. With that said; I respect what Gene says only because he is right.
      The industry does not know how to make money. They have zero control, zero flood gates and in the end got suckered by the fans and kids that were SMARTER THAN THEM. The Industry should have taken full force action day one; but they did not and for that they are paying for it the hard way. I am all for compensating artists for their work but when the industry floods the world with way too many artists (who all sound the same), and then expects you and I to pay for each individual item, they are doing their best to take us (the consumers) for fools. I am no fool and frankly do not have to spend my hard earned cash on every new Hip-Hop, Rap, Goth, Rock and American Idol wannabe. Further, if I can get what I want for free then I am taking that offer (right or wrong and not all the time).
      Simmons is just pointing this out because he is not only a musician but a business person and knows how to market and make money - without stealing it. And; weather you choose to admit it or not - by not paying for music, videos or whatever that is placed into the market place (unless it has "FREE" or "COMPLEMENTARY" stamped on it) is Stealing and a crime!

      Digg me up or Digg me Down - but you know I am right.
      • g3r4, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10Except that "compensating artists" doesn't really include buying their music. That's where most bands make the least amount of money, thanks to the labels they sign to. Go to shows, buy t-shirts and other crap to support them.
      • hiikeeba, on 11/15/2007, -18/+7You are right, and that's why you're being Dugg down. Not by me though.
        • betterth, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9He's wrong. Bands don't make money from direct sales unless they're one of the rare mega hits. Stealing songs doesn't hurt bands much at all, it hurts the executives who are trying to afford the next payment on the 7-series Beamer. My bands are doing fine because by attending a single concert and buying a t-shirt, I've given them more money than if I had bought forty or fifty of their albums.
          • OwdenBowden, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Actually I am right. Band do not make their money from direct sales - they make it from concerts, Publishing and merchandising. But if a bind does not have DIRECT SALES then they will be dropped from their label and in the end fail. So when you take from these bands (download) you are in fact killing the very band you enjoy.


            Please not I DO NOT SUPPORT THE RIAA nor the MPAA. I think these groups should be taught a lesson with a world wide boycott of their products for a week long period. WE as the consumer HAVE THE POWER.

            With that said - Taking what is not yours; Taking what you have not paid for is a crime.
      • betterth, on 11/15/2007, -4/+21You're wrong, very wrong, and you show a complete lack of understanding of the digital medium. By your logic, Google should be pennyless for offering search for free, since they aren't directly charging and being compensated for each search.

        The recording industry knows how to make money first off, or else they wouldn't be making billions. To claim they don't is ludicrous. They, like Gene, are unwilling to believe that there is more ways than direct sales of albums to make money. They just don't get it. And that's okay, Gene hasn't been popular for decades.

        Giving music away, giving it away for free is a sustainable business model for many bands. It has to be, because they're already practically giving it away. When you sell a hundred thousand albums and the recording industry gives you less than a dollar for each, and you split that four ways between your band members for the years work -- well let's just say bands have been subsidizing their income for decades, because unless your a AAA mega hit, you don't make jack *****.

        In today's world theres a thousand ways for bands to sell their music for way way way less than they do now and make more money than they do now.

        However, in the future business model, we're missing one thing. The greedy, overbearing recording industry. It's the thing stifling production now. It's stifling creativity. It tells us what to play. It tells us we need its equipment. Equipment is cheap and talent is plentiful. ***** the industry, it's time for a musical revolution, and douchebags like Gene will be sitting on the side lines saying "Them whippersnappers, I don't understand their newfangled ideas and technologies!"
        • Markpdotcom, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4I love you!
        • FlyingSpaghetti, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2"The recording industry knows how to make money first off, or else they wouldn't be making billions."

          Yes, but why make billions when we could make.......MILLIONS?
        • ghamal, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2You HAVE to see Larry Lessig's Ted Talk where he talks about how "the law" is basically strangling creativity. MUST SEE - both funny and relevant:
          http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
        • OwdenBowden, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1If you read what I have posted you will see that I stated very clearly - THE RECORD COMPANY'S GOT TAKEN BY KIDS WHO WERE SMARTER THAN THEM SELVES.
      • azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1You love the marketing? What are you some kind of sadist yuppie who listens to Rock and Roll in a suit and does the Carlton Banks dance to it ?
      • cbreaker, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Ever stop to think that the REASON the recoding industry was blindsided by the Internet is because their business model is broken? Once a medium hit the consumer that allowed them to share the music they liked with everyone else, people jammed on it, because music is TOO EXPENSIVE and the big record labels offered NO way to get whatever music they wanted, on demand, for free or otherwise.

        If the greedy sons of bitches at the RIAA had come to market FIRST, with a viable PAY solution, then Napster would have never been invented. But they didn't want to allow people to JUST buy one song for 75 cents. They wanted to charge you $18 for an entire album.

        So this is the culture we live in. You can't just change culture. You have to adapt.
      • random19, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Why on earth would they stamp "COMPLEMENTARY" on anything? How would music add up to 90 degrees?
    • raynar, on 11/15/2007, -4/+52Gene Simmons is just a bitch. Ever watch his show on AE? ALL HE DOES is try and make money, with stupid ideas. He wants a KISS ski park thing (forget where when I watched the episode), and thinks he's a badass, when he's just an old man with a hot wife.
      • nj10ii, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7Shes maybe hot for an old chick. Washed up has been in fact. I wouldn't want to see her naked, now anyways. Back in he Playboy days sure, but time takes it toll. Just look at Gene!!
        • cawpin, on 11/15/2007, -9/+1nj10ii - You're just an idiot. She's still very hot.
      • grantmoore3d, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2She's certainly better than the women you'll see walking around WalMart...
    • nj10ii, on 11/15/2007, -2/+30KISS my ass!
    • chizzlechest420, on 11/15/2007, -7/+4"As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on" THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP RIGHT THERE
    • rssolo23, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5random FACT: Kiss in arabic means "*****". No joke.
      • Ravenhaft, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2It's true! Confirmed by Saudi roommates.
    • bpunch, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8I can't agree with you any more. He's a rich, greedy piece of *****!
    • trunkster, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Knights In Satan's Service is telling us not to share music? ***** that.
    • BLish, on 11/15/2007, -26/+4***** waaaaah people! you steal music and you defend your right to steal music because it's off of the internet. so therefore it's legal? wrong. if you cannot afford to buy it from a legitimate resource like iTunes or even Napster with their low ass monthly fees... then you really have zero business downloading the music. like it on the radio? so buy the damned thing. it's friggin 99 cents a song... sometimes a lil more. and i've said this before... so i'll cut and paste it and say it again...

      agreed. i am against the RIAA also... but... i'm also against those who regularly use P2P networks to steal music, movies, software, & games .... or as many of you who worship OiNk.cd and other BitTorrent sites... "it's not stealing.. it's file sharing".

      or as I have often heard... "it's not stealing if everyone is doing it"... that's one of my favorites actually.

      theft is theft.. .there's really no other argument. pay for your shiat people! if you can't afford it... then you don't need it!

      some of you piss and moan because Gene Simmons says you should be sued for stealing (oh, wait... "file sharing".. my bad) their music? even if it's not Kiss.. whoever. you claim you hate Kiss now because he says people should be sued for stealing music? wow. i guess the 12 year old ratio on Digg has grown way outta control.

      If you spent your life and your time into creating something you believed in in hopes of generating income for your family, just as these musicians are, and someone steals it instead of paying 99 cents for the song, wouldn't you be pissed too? stealing is theft. there is really no other way to sugar coat this. you can call it file sharing or P2P or BitTorrent or Oink.cd ... but it's still theft.

      if you walked into Walmart and stole a CD off the rack, you would be charged with a crime! it's still stealing music. but because everyone else is doing it .. that makes it okay? completely unacceptable. it's this frame of mind that truly worries me for the future of our country in so many ways.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7You forgot to thank the Academy.
      • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -10/+1i'm digging you up even though it seems like everyone is doing the opposite.
      • veter, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2All right, fine, it's stealing. Any one that denies that is wrong. HOWEVER, just because its the law does not mean its immoral.
        It is far more immoral in my opinion (which, of course, is all that matters in this) for the record companies to charge $12-$30 for a CD just because they can than it is for me to steal music. I wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place, so I'm only giving the band more exposure than they would have gotten through traditional means.

        Bands that act like the internet is only going to hurt their bottom dollar are missing the point. Ignoring new technology and not embracing it is ridiculously bad business. Gene Simmons sounds like a 90-year-old codger who's terrified of change.
      • andycr512, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Please get a dictionary and call us back when you learn what the word "theft" means.
        • BLish, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2okay... i'll play.

          "In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."

          do you honestly think these musicians are each giving their individual consent to take steal their music? wait.. there's more!

          "As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, mugging, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception)"

          "fraud ...theft by deception"... this wouldn't happen to pertain to anything you are doing when you use P2P networks to download music without buying it would it?

          please don't tell me you are confused any longer. it's spelled out for you now.
          • andycr512, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Property is -only- physical items. You can't own a method of arranging bits on a hard drive. To say that you can claim a method of arranging metal on a platter as your property is simply a joke. That's why the term "intellectual property" was coined - to confuse people on the issue and make them believe that such a definition applies to it.

            The last nail in the coffin is the fact that those who infringe copyright can't be charged with theft in any country I am aware of. If it's theft, then why aren't they prosecuted for theft?
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Also when you steal a car from someone in real life, the original owner no longer has a car. when you "steal" intellectual property, they haven't lost anything (besides the ability to convince you that $18 is a fair price for an album).

            There was a time before music could be recorded when musicians had to make money by actually playing music live. Technology giveth and technology taketh away.
    • danarama, on 11/15/2007, -6/+1wow Gene is wit it yo...freaky hip to da scene
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/15/2007, -0/+14That's the final straw, I am going to pirate all of KISS's music!
      OH WAIT!! NO I'M NOT!!! THEY SUCK!!!
      Funny how the "musicians" with the crappiest music are most adamant about making money at all costs.
      • Foamator, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1You wouldn't kill a policeman...
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I also wouldn't download KISS *vomits*
    • joemofo214, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3didnt he become unimportant after the ***** disco album?

      dio ftw
    • h4xx3d, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6The only good thing that ever came from Gene Simmons is his daughter.. Damn, she's hot!
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2***** Chaim Witz.
    • Shadowhawk22, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Agreed. ***** KISS. I used to like Gene Simmons. Now I hate him. I'll NEVER pay for another album or concert for this man, EVER. Ass
    • CanceledCzech, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Epic Fail.
    • johnnysix, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0Because Kiss really needs more money right?
    • GOVStooge, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Gene Simmons is a product of the old way of the record business. The way that is widely understood(at least by it's consumers) as obsolete and soon to be extinct.
  • dastardlydud, on 11/15/2007, -9/+587Typical of Gene Simmons to claim that he invented the hatred of downloading. What else has his big ass ego tried to claim he invented? The devil horns, metal, and rock and roll itself. KISS was a sellout band and they always will be, remember their disco album? Nuff said.
    • doctechnical, on 11/15/2007, -17/+7Kiss invented Rock 'n Roll, didn't you hear?
      • dafragsta, on 11/15/2007, -5/+13Several years after Led Zeppelin beat them to it. KISS is the Blue October of 70s.
        • mbonzo531, on 11/15/2007, -12/+3How did you just equate led zeppelin to kiss? Are you insane?
          • notque, on 11/15/2007, -20/+5Robert Plant is a slimy *****
            John Bonham man, he really sucked
            Those greedy *****, those phoney *****
            They made their money off idiots
            I hate Led Zeppelin
            12 dollar concerts were all the rage
            They bought cocaine for Jimmy Page
            "Stairway to Heaven" makes me see red
            Bonzo's buried, only three more left
            I hate Led Zeppelin
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2@notque
            I don't think most diggers even know who screeching weasel are, bro.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1God damnit. Sorry. I wish I could make it stop happening!
          • notque, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Eh, at least you know who they are ;)
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 11/15/2007, -5/+2 Rock n roll started from black bands...
      • platypibri, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3No, "God gave rock and roll to you".
      • Dumbledorito, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1Nah, God gave rock and roll to you,
        Gave rock and roll to you,
        Gave rock and roll to everyone.
        • brokencrystal, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I believe the last line is...
          "Put it in the soul of everyone"
      • krets, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4They also invented sarcasm. Apparently they didn't license its rights to Digg.
    • moonguidex, on 11/15/2007, -1/+20*****! The disco album...didn't remember that, it really sucked.
      • astrotrain, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2Everyone had a disco album:

        Mickey Mouse Disco
        Sesame Street Disco
        Ozzy Osbourne's - Disco Train (Allboard... The DISCO TRAIN!.... hahhahaha)

        So whats the point?
    • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -1/+12Hey Gene, James Hetfield from Metallica just called, and said that he was the first rock god to go after file-sharers.
      • nipples8, on 11/15/2007, -0/+14Sorry, Lars Ultrabitch beat James to the punch...
      • Markpdotcom, on 11/15/2007, -3/+7Ha! All the way down here and this is the first Metallica reference!
        ***** Kiss and ***** Metalica!
      • astrotrain, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7Ghost of Music Future: **points to the now lazy washed up Metallica on the couch because they went after their fans**
        Gene: "Ghost of music future... is this the destiny of Kiss... after all these years, just because we also wanted to sue?"
        Ghost of Music Future: **nods head silently**
        Gene: ** thinks... no more Kiss Coffee House.... No More Family Jewels....**
    • Branyers, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3"Dynasty"? It spawned the hit "I Was Made For Lovin' You", and Homer Simpson danced naked to it in church. That is its only redeeming quality.
      • Dweed, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Actually, wasn't that "War" by Edwin Starr?
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7Yep, KISS existed for no other reason than to make money. They existed for the sole reason of selling out. They were never about the music, which is obvious, because most of it sucked. Oh, and Gene, Ronnie James Dio brought the horns to metal, so shut up you arrogant douche.
      • euphoriadj, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1They were also all about the hot teen sex
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1Dupe, finger slipped.
    • MrNexus, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5I never liked Gene Simmons or KISS, but now he gave me a reason to hate him. The title should say "Stupid old man says stupid things."
    • dgendreau, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Kiss had a Disco album???? Now I have to go download that *****. Just for the comedy value alone.
    • SeligErasmus, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4The guys in KISS are basically The Monkees with make up and pyrotechnics. They are the spitting definition of corporate, gimmick rock.

      Furthermore, KISS' artistic catalog is just... awful. Seriously. Try listening to their studio albums - they suck *****. And if we're going to be real honest about it, "Alive" doesn't hold up that well either. That's not to say they don't have a handful of good songs, but *****, 4 or 5 good songs over the course of 27 albums does not a prolific career make.

      I think it's also telling that a pop group like The Ronettes were elected into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last year, while KISS has yet to appear on the ballot.
  • ettin, on 11/15/2007, -14/+223I wonder how people that suck this much at music manage to become so successful.

    Their fans must descendants of hellen keller.
    • SuperChicken, on 11/15/2007, -19/+2I thought she was only blind?
    • notque, on 11/15/2007, -14/+28She was a worker's rights activist, and a radical. Disgusting.

      Keller was a member of the Socialist Party and actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working classes from 1909 to 1921. She supported Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency.

      Newspaper columnists who had praised her courage and intelligence before she expressed her socialist views now called attention to her disabilities. The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote that her "mistakes sprung out of the manifest limitations of her development." Keller responded to that editor, referring to having met him before he knew of her political views:
      “ At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him...Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent.[4] ”

      Keller joined the Industrial Workers of the World (known as the IWW or the Wobblies) in 1912,[5] saying that parliamentary socialism was "sinking in the political bog." She wrote for the IWW between 1916 and 1918. In Why I Became an IWW[6], Keller explained that her motivation for activism came in part from her concern about blindness and other disabilities:
      “ I was appointed on a commission to investigate the conditions of the blind. For the first time I, who had thought blindness a misfortune beyond human control, found that too much of it was traceable to wrong industrial conditions, often caused by the selfishness and greed of employers. And the social evil contributed its share. I found that poverty drove women to a life of shame that ended in blindness. ”

      The last sentence refers to prostitution and syphilis, a leading cause of blindness.

      Keller and her friend Mark Twain were both radicals whose political views have been forgotten or glossed over in their popular perception.
      • doctechnical, on 11/15/2007, -10/+5Did you know Helen Keller had a doll house in her back yard?

        Neither did she.
        • Herostratos, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5Who couldn't Helen Keller drive?
          She was a woman.
      • wakananda, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14Thank you, notque, for this fascinating bit of suppressed American history. I imagine you are being dug down because "socialism" is a word that Americans have been conditioned to associate with the devil, feces, flesh-eating bacteria, etc. - there's an almost universal instinctive revulsion, without any knowledge of what socialism might really be, much less any consciousness of socialism as an integral part of the USA's political history. This revulsion has been sold to us with our wheaties, in the Sunday paper, and with our pork chops on the Evening TV News. Maybe things will change now that more information is readily available, and the conversation is no longer closed. Einstein was a socialist, too - but you hear not a word about that in the TV biographies.
        BTW: I am not a socialist, but I have great sympathy for the universal human aspirations - for justice, health, education, peace - from which the political philosophy of socialism springs.
        • kevlarbaboon, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Or he's being dugg down because it's a history lesson on Hellen Kellen within a story dealing with a KISS frontman and music sharing.
        • cbreaker, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately, he just cut'n'pasted from Wikipedia. It's actually not suppressed at all. At the time, there was a huge fear of communism, but in reality she was a very smart, very active human rights activist that deserves respect. You can read all about Helen Keller on any number of web sites or books. She wrote a few, too.
      • airiox, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7I don't see what anyone's political views have to do with what they accomplished in life. Lindbergh was a nazi along with many more prominent members of society, but that doesn't take away from what they accomplished, at least it shouldn't. And it only matters to egotistical morons who think their views are always right.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 11/15/2007, -5/+227FTA: "So what if music just becomes free and artists make their living off of touring and merchandise?
    Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce"

    - And you know what? More and more people are realizing how worthless so much music is - and that's why it will become free. We all no longer agree and abide by YOUR definition of what it should cost.

    What an ignorant statement. I'm not against paying for music and I like to support artists, but honestly, the internet has made the barriers to distribution next to nothing - Big labels are no longer needed, and litigious labels will be eradicated because we will no longer buy from them!

    Before you know it, technology will not only shift our definitions of intellectual and digital property, but of actual physical property as well. As bandwidth and network coverage increases, we as people have a choice to live in a digital feudalism or a free society.
    • Klak, on 11/15/2007, -1/+31gold has many uses other than jewlery ie electronics
      • RadicalEdward, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6Not to mention we don't just "make up" how much gold costs. It's a matter of supply and demand as well as consumer interest. No one would buy an ounce of gold if it cost 10 billion, thus no one charges 10 billion.
        I think he's getting delusional in his old age.
        • Bridea, on 11/15/2007, -0/+15Not to mention that duplicating music is a matter of CTRL+C, CTRL+V. Duplicating gold is, well, elusive.
        • sint4x, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I think rabidmonkey1 was eluding to the fact that we control demand and the supply will result from that. Therefore, we more or less "make up" how much gold costs.
          • barius, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"...alluding to the fact..."

            'eluding' or 'to elude' is a synonym for 'avoiding' or 'to avoid'.
            E.g. The criminal eluded the incompetent police.

            /part-time grammar nazi
          • barius, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"...alluding to the fact..."

            'eluding' or 'to elude' is a synonym for 'avoiding' or 'to avoid'.
            E.g. The criminal eluded the incompetent police.

            /part-time grammar nazi
        • dgendreau, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Diamonds would make a better analogy than gold. They are virtually worthless (look at resale values on diamond rings for example) and they are a much more abundant mineral than most people realize.

          EDIT: er, what barius said below. heh
      • gernblansted, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Gosh, that Simmons guy just has his finger on the pulse of reality...
      • barius, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5He should have used diamonds in his argument. Gold prices are held high by keeping supply artificially low, but not to the exaggerated extent as diamonds.

        Diamonds are only as expensive as they are because Debeers owns most of the worlds diamond mines and they warehouse the majority of what they dig up. If Debeers released all their stockpiled diamonds into the market the price would fall below the cost of nickel.

        The point here is, the music labels have a similar monopoly on music and have used it to set their own desired market prices. Now that the monopoly has been broken (albeit through currently illegal means), the music labels are being destroyed by their own refusal to adapt to the changing market. I think a lot of people are not aware that the labels are not fighting to protect a market, but to protect their own power to control markets. It's about time society took that power back.
      • barius, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2He should have used diamonds in his argument. Gold prices are held high by keeping supply artificially low, but not to the exaggerated extent as diamonds.

        Diamonds are only as expensive as they are because Debeers owns most of the worlds diamond mines and they warehouse the majority of what they dig up. If Debeers released all their stockpiled diamonds into the market the price would fall below the cost of nickel.

        The point here is, the music labels have a similar monopoly on music and have used it to set their own desired market prices. Now that the monopoly has been broken (albeit through currently illegal means), the music labels are being destroyed by their own refusal to adapt to the changing market. I think a lot of people are not aware that the labels are not fighting to protect a market, but to protect their own power to control markets. It's about time society took that power back.
    • notque, on 11/15/2007, -11/+14Music is worthless. Your life would be no worse, and probably slightly better not listening to rich people tell you how they live, or what they want, or how they feel.
      • onwardknave, on 11/15/2007, -3/+16Music is part of the human experience. Without art, without music, and without literature, we would be closer to machines. Just because one celebrates music does not mean they celebrate the motivations of its composers.
        • notque, on 11/15/2007, -0/+11Let me clarify, Corporate music is worthless. My mistake.
        • cbreaker, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5You shouldn't have backed down. You were right, music isn't actually worth anything. If you never listened to music, you can still be a good, honest, hard working person that has a lot of fun in life. But it is enjoyable, and is a big part of human civilization throughout history. But it used to be special, not saturated like now. Now, it seems like everywhere you turn, someone is trying to sell you music, play music, or tell you how good a particular music is. iPods, MP3's, the Internet. They all make it seem as though ALL people want to do is listen to music.

          When Chopin wrote his music, he played it for audiences. It was beautiful music, but it was a rarity to hear it because there was no mass production of it. It was special, it was a celebration, but it wasn't YOUR LIFE.
      • VelvetoneFusion, on 11/15/2007, -0/+14How many albums did Beethoven have in his record contract? I forget now...
        Who at EMI decided that Eine Kleine Nachtmusik was gonna be one of Mozart's hit singles? *****, and I call myself a music nerd...
        • notque, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6I meant Corporate Music. Big mistake in words, my apologies.
    • diggik, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5He immediately contradicted his Reznor statement with the gold analogy. "The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce" because Reznor and Radiohead were doing exactly that with their music.
      • jon30041, on 11/15/2007, -8/+3No, they let you pay what you want, and MORE THAN HALF PAID NOTHING. Call that supporting the music?

        ***** record labels, get artists to release their music themselves on their site immediately after completion of production, and guess what? 25 cents a song isn't much, it'll be a big number in the long run, a CD will cost about $3 on the outside, and who ***** NEEDS 20,000 songs on their iPod. I'm perfectly fine with about 30 CDs worth of tunes. Digital cost of music needs to reflect the digital cost of availability, but it STILL NEEDS TO COST SOMETHING. I LOVE Reznor. He is a VERY pretty Hate Machine, and I hope he'll be the first to offer music for a cheaper price on the internet than in stores. Wal-Mart the biggest distributor of music in the nation? Screw em, release the CDs earlier online rather than waiting for them to finish getting pressed, shipped, and be in danger of all of the stealing.

        Christ... I don't like the RIAA, but I don't like the other side either.
        • oderdigg, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7I think you missed out on one major point.

          To say that more than half paid nothing is a misnomer. In reality you do not know how many people downloaded it twice, three times or never. Personally I downloaded it (not from their site, it was too slow) using a bittorrent client and I didn't like it. I wonder how many people downloaded it from their site and didn't like it, hence didn't pay for it.

          In the end, they got a lot of buzz and like that ***** Gene said, buzz is hard to create. They made millions, period. They will make more millions when they tour. Fans will always support their favorite artists, regardless of price. Those that didn't pay, weren't fans. Like me.
        • xtmno3, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10Radiohead stated that the over half paying nothing statistic was wrong.
        • tnvwboy, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Why produce an 'album' at all? Release songs when you have them ready. Singles could easily make a come back when there is no media to produce.
          • themuffinman, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2An album is more than just a collection of songs. Artists spend a lot of time figuring out what order they want the songs and getting it to sound like, well, a continuous album. That, and many people with an attention span of greater than 3 minutes like to listen to a whole album, and not have to create a playlist for each artist.
    • bbear, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Gold is expensive because it is scarce and in high demand. It has nothing to do with us agreeing gold should cost a certain amount. Any commodity that is in high demand but scarce will be expensive. It also doesn't matter what it is used for.. jewelry, electronics, horse shoes, toilet bowls.
      • BlackJackJester, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1as far as I can tell, Gene was trying to get the point across that golds intrinsic value is nil, as is everything else. Someone has something (gold, for example) and we might want to get it from them. We could kill them, and take it, or we could give them something they value equally to gold. Hence the entire basis of our economy. I suppose what I'm aiming at here is that was kind of a "no s***" statement
    • drjones78, on 11/15/2007, -0/+25Well, his first mistake is equating himself with an "Artist". Gene Simmons has been in interviews over the years, and repeatedly said he made music just to get laid, and anyone else who claims differently about their music career is a liar. Hey, while I can respect that on a certain level, lets not pretend he's an artist on the level on Trent Reznor, or the members of Radiohead... people that actually care about music, and just dont use it as part of a freakshow circus act, so they can get pussy and not have to work a day in their life.

      He doesnt give a rats ass about his music, neither should we. He is afraid his fat cat, rockstar lifestyle is in peril because they havnt produced one ounce of solid music their entire career. It should be priced accordingly.... (ie, he should have to PAY ME, if I want to waste valuable time listing to the rubish)
      • natedouglas, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1"anyone else who claims differently about their music career is a liar"

        It hasn't helped Morrisey :-/
    • TheUngod, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14Bwahahahahaha! Music is the most important part??? Says the man who brought Glam into the limelight! What a douchebag.
      • natedouglas, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Holy Eno and Bowie, Batman! Not all glam is *****.

        Well, Eno anyway.
    • RunnyBabbit, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4"Digital feudalism." I'll have to remember to plagiarize that.
      • rabidmonkey1, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1The term is from freeculture.org I think...
    • DokGonzo, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Music isn't worthless, but digital copies are. In a world where a million copies can be made and distributed virtually free there's no sense in imposing artificial pricing. I love KISS, but Gene is a douchebag. Artists make by far the most money from live events and related merchandise, NOT pressed music, so his argument is just stupid. If he thinks he can just sit on his fat ass and rake in royalties from CD and DVD sales in this new Internet based economy - think again. The gravy train has left the station... like 10 years ago.
      • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1it's not the cost of making the copy that they're charging you for.
    • knicks555, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1FTA: "So what if music just becomes free and artists make their living off of touring and merchandise?
      Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free."

      I think we're giving him too much credit in the first sentence. How does giving the music away for free ultimately take it away?? Are we paying to go see concerts to watch the artists recite Where the wild things are? No, I don't believe that to be true.

      I can see he's just arrogant and obnoxious and it bothers me that my republican marine friend loves them so much, because he's actually a really nice kid.
      • knicks555, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I rethought this to understand what he was saying and I came up with this.
        I think, from what he is saying, that he is inferring not that music is the most important part, because that would make no sense. Giving music away for free wouldn't take away the music. What he is saying is the transaction of purchasing music is the most important part. Because that is all you lose by giving music away for free.
        • knicks555, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1oh never mind I figured it out haha. It took me a while. But I figured out the faulty logic.

          He is saying that just because music is the most important part of this situation, it shouldn't be given away for free.
          There is no reason for us to believe this is true. If he's going to use a metaphor with gold I can use a metaphor as well.
          Water is the most important element in nature therefore it shouldn't be given away for free to anyone, so we should get rid of water fountains. This is just as ridiculous.

    • ghamal, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I have to recommend this TED talk by Stanford professor Larry Lessig on how creativity and culture is being held back by intellectual property laws.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
    • pinoydigger, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2If we could only download gold......

      hehe
  • physicx, on 11/15/2007, -51/+7I really like Gene, but he is way off on this.
    • merdiesel, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Seriously...
      ***** him, his ***** ***** band, and his stupid ass family no one cares about.
  • BoneStamp, on 11/15/2007, -1/+40If the topic was "dead beat dad's", the pull quote would probably be different.
  • MikeonTV, on 11/15/2007, -4/+306This coming from a guy who started a band that didn't make it until they all dressed up like Alice Cooper!
    • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6And you might remember what happened after they took off the make up on MTV for the first time....
      And you might also recall what happened 20 years later when they put back on the makeup.
      • Naught, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Well, what happened? I'm clearly not as old as you, so I don't know.

        Oldy.
    • Naught, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Feed my Frankenstein.
    • mattrmcg, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Except Alice Cooper is a smart guy
  • cosmikdebris, on 11/15/2007, -1/+120Hey Gene, "$$$$ $$."
    • ivandir, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4I think the best response to Gene Simmons would be 1,000,000 envelopes each containing $0.01 (1 penny).

      I think he would like the response.
      • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3how bout you send them to me...i swear i'll forward it on to him.
    • NihilFist, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Who's this Gene Simmons person that everyone's talking about?

      /
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5Did you just tell him to blow you, in dollarsigns?
  • Stettenbauer, on 11/15/2007, -3/+183Coming from a guy that tried to milk his fans for everthing they where worth.
    • doctechnical, on 11/15/2007, -0/+27Hey, true KISS fans *need* a Kiss coffin.
      • ohgr, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Well I'd say Dimebag was one person who deserved it (not being shot i mean).
    • ibeetle, on 11/15/2007, -9/+6Actually that would be The Beatles.

      $135 for the DVD of Help (Deluxe Edition)... they are out of there ***** minds.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Thank Michael Jackson for that, he owns the catalog.
    • inajeep, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4Actually "still trying" applies.
    • MrNexus, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4I should download every KISS album for free and then delete them right after because I hate their music. But it's not worth the effort. Poor Gene is just latching on but what ever he can get as his popularity fades.
  • PistolSO, on 11/15/2007, -3/+136This coming from a guy who gave us such songs as "Let's Put The X in Sex" and "Lick It Up". Gene, Lars Ulrich, and Prince need to FOAD.
    • Ziggygallaway, on 11/15/2007, -2/+84Back in the 80's, when Metallica were just starting out, I saw an interview with them. Lars was all "***** the record companies and big money- we are doing this for the KIDS!!" what the ***** happened to that poser?!?
      • SuperSneaks, on 11/15/2007, -2/+23Money
      • notque, on 11/15/2007, -7/+14When George Bush was just starting out, I saw an interview with him. Bush was all "***** foreign intervention. You'd have to be an idiot to try that!" What the ***** happened to that poser?!?

        .... The same thing. People in businesses like that are going to say whatever they think you want to hear to make them more popular. What are you going to do, do a research project to see if Lars really cares about his record company?

        They say whatever makes you more likely to buy, and if you don't know that buy now, I don't know what it will take to get through to you.
        • DrMonkeyLove, on 11/15/2007, -7/+5This thread isn't about George Bush for *****'s sake!
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7ESPECIALLY lars...*****' little punk ass bitch. diaf you scunt
    • appetite, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5With the exception of Prince, who is just kind of out of his mind, it's always the ***** musicians who speak out against piracy. They are the ones who benefit from the system. They are the ones who are afraid of the idea of people having more opportunity to listen to all the good stuff that's out there. They are afraid of competition, because they know that they can't stack up to the best that's out there.

      This is coming from a musician. Recorded music is the greatest promotional device. Make it free! The live show is where the money and the talent (and culture) is at.
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Fall... on a ... dick? Did I guess it right?
  • sophiaperennis, on 11/15/2007, -2/+148Yeah, sue them for $9250 a song, because that is really what one song is worth these days!

    People shouldn't be allowed to get off their medication and appear on TV.
    • 68024, on 11/15/2007, -3/+12'these days' - I don't think a song was EVER worth that much.
    • Damian91, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"People shouldn't be allowed to get off their medication and appear on TV."

      Hahaha, ouch. Good one...
    • cos5000, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4not that i agree with the verdict, but they penalize people heavily to deter others. you can't fine somebody $0.25 for not putting a quarter in the meter or and expect anybody to not park wherever the ***** they want all day. There is a model to figure chances of getting caught and make fines high enough that they outweigh the unlikelihood of prosecution. over $9000 is pretty steep, but its probably not unreasonable to expect at least $500-1000 per song.
      • kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Wrong. Punishing someone should never be disproportional to the crime. It is in every way unreasonable to expect hundreds of dollars for a song that cost a dollar.
  • ktchpmn, on 11/15/2007, -6/+186"BUT SOME ARTISTS LIKE RADIOHEAD AND TRENT REZNOR ARE TRYING TO FIND A NEW BUSINESS MODEL.

    That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f---ing crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?"

    the old hag is just jealous he can't create publicity like Radiohead can.
    • catalysis, on 11/15/2007, -4/+14Radiohead can generate publicity because the record labels made them famous. We have yet to see anyone rise to that level from the internet alone.

      Somehow there is eventually going to have to be new music in our utopian system where everything is free.
      • honus, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Everything needs a catalyst. Starts with well known acts proving there's profitability. Then comes elegant distribution. New model, in a few steps.
        Each step is critical but without a good source of distribution, there will be no new paradigm. That's the one thing the labels could provide. The iTunes platform could work.
      • finbec, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Jonathan Coulton's done pretty well for himself from internet publicity alone. http://www.jonathancoulton.com
        He's not nearly at the level of "famous" as Radiohead, but he's certainly shown that it can be done.
        • thailand1972, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3You gotta be kidding - WHO??!
        • MasteRR, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5Just because YOU have never heard of him doesn't mean he isn't doing well. He started out giving away his music, now he tours constantly and has been getting deals with TV shows and video games. His song Code Monkey is now the theme of a G4 show of the same name and he wrote the closing theme song for the game Portal. Not mega-millionaire popular, but he is doing very well for himself. And in the end is millions really something you want?
          • nipples8, on 11/15/2007, -7/+2He will never make money if he is peddling his music to geeks, y'all will just steal it anyways.
        • KirbyMeister, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3thailand1972: he's the guy that did the Portal closing song. YES. HE DID "STILL ALIVE".
        • nipples8, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Yeah, and whatshisname is all over the media, outselling everyone.
      • childprey, on 11/15/2007, -1/+13The Arctic Monkeys got signed based on their myspace...
        • kraniac, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Fall Out Boy did the same (I'm not saying that they're good, because they aren't, but they are at least popular, and they got that way without the help of a record label).
        • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2a lot of people get signed off myspace....however, the point is that they got signed...that was their goal, not to try and distribute their music themselves online and become rich.
          • childprey, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I know, but garnering that sort of attention from a middleman suggests it may be possible to eventually dodge the middlemen
      • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0I think it has naturally become more difficult to get people to throw money at you for a small amount of music. There's a vast amount of free music available at our fingertips at all times, and I'm perfectly content with it. I'm not watching television and I don't care about following the latest mainstream musical trends... In fact, so many of my friends have switched to getting content from the internet that I'm not sure I can identify a mainstream. They can't manufacture/shove-it-down-our-throats as easily anymore and that's probably a good thing. I'll continue to support concert tours when they come by, but have pretty much lost all interest in buying music. I've got so much music that I haven't even listened to that I'm not even interested in getting it for free.
      • sd123, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Radiohead can generate publicity because they're good at music.
      • fribhey, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"Radiohead can generate publicity because the record labels made them famous"
        yeah, because we all know that the record labels are the ones who wrote radiohead's songs.....
        radiohead became famous because of THEIR music, not because of any record company doing it for them. the only credit you can give the labels in this case is that they gave radiohead the freedom to write the music they wanted to write.
      • terminal157, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1The part of the equation that a lot of people miss is that the era of huge bands is already coming to an end, and as the new business models take over it is even less likely that a band will become internationally huge by previous standards. And that's really not such a terrible thing, more quality artists will be making a living making music than ever before, they just won't be able to buy a mansion.
      • xtmno3, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1What about people who get a ton of publicity from things on the Internet?
        Example, Ok Go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI
        True, it wasn't their original album, but you have to admit they gained a lot of visibility from it.
        • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1how do you know that their label wasn't responsible for that video?
        • Tribalvirtue, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Because it was on youtube? How many labels would have allowed a thing like that?
      • naturemade, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Tila Tequila had 230,000 plays on her myspace the other day. As much disdain as I have for her she got there by marketing the hell out of herself on myspace not from a label.
      • Thorox, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Not even Tay Zonday?
      • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1"We have yet to see anyone rise to that level from the internet alone."

        tila taquila is the only one i can think of and obviously she was gunning for more than just a music career.
      • Smalldude76, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Sick Puppies, anyone?
    • tehnico, on 11/15/2007, -0/+11Well he's right, you can't open a store and expect to make money based on a pay what you want scenario. Thankfully the new business model being tested doesn't rely on the constraints of hiring staff, keeping inventory, maintaining business space, and overhead like utilities, paying for the coke habits, limos and sluts of grossly overpaid so-called rock stars, to make them forget that they are corporate sellout ***** and make them feel like rebellious teenagers again.

      He's absolutely right!
      • spyrochaete, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2"you can't open a store and expect to make money based on a pay what you want scenario"

        Why not? You create the product and there's an unlimited supply!
        • tehnico, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Physical store. Means you would need physical customers, and a physical inventory.
          • spyrochaete, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Like Radiohead's latest album? That's the context of Simmons' comments.
      • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1He may not like it, but that's pretty much the model we're living with whether it's condoned or not. All things considered, open sharing of information is far too important to screw around with just for the music industry's sake. It's a matter of making the best of the reality rather than holding on to the illusion that there is a choice.
    • cecinestpasvrai, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2This is an established business model. All it takes is a customer base that puts value in your product. Odds are, if enough people care about what your doing, its possible.
      http://www.soallmayeat.org/
      http://www.oneworldeverybodyeats.com/saltlakecity. ...
      There's some more here:
      http://www.springwise.com/food_beverage/paywhatyou ...
      • seeyounorth, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1There is a big difference between 'pay what you want' cafes and internet-based downloading. You maintain an illusion of anonymity when downloading, whereas physically being in a place and being seen putting down money (or not). People tend to pay when they think people are watching as to not look like a thief.
        • cecinestpasvrai, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Well sure, there's different social settings involved, and I suppose the idea of what you "owe" could be effected by that, but I think the cafes show that its possible in more settings than radiohead's album. I think people like being asked (when they have the money, wealthy patrons like Trent Reznor plunking $5000 for the album) and like being able to get things for less than they would otherwise (when they don't have money, college). I don't think we know how usable it is on a large scale until entire services swing in this direction.
    • orlyfactor, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1He's just jealous because they actually have talent.
  • iceman0113, on 11/15/2007, -0/+137FTA: "Doesn't affect me. But imagine being a new band with dreams of getting on stage and putting out your own record. Forget it. "

    How do you think bands are getting noticed now? They are now getting noticed by putting their music up for free through purevolume, bittorrent, and so on. The world's changed Gene, it's you that is unable to cope with this change and embrace it. I download all of my music, but I buy whatever merch they have on sale to promote and support the bands.
    • Phyltre, on 11/15/2007, -0/+14It's much easier for an indie band to get noticed now, with "free" music, than it was back when the internet and file-sharing weren't around.
    • thailand1972, on 11/15/2007, -6/+5"They are now getting noticed by putting their music up for free through purevolume, bittorrent, and so on."

      So....name some bands not on a label who are making it, and I mean - making it some. I always ask this in these types of threads, and nobody ever answers this question. Perhaps you'll be the first. Can you name even 3 bands who are making it big through P2P networks, and haven't had the help of a label? And I don't mean your friends bands, or bands that are fairly well known in certain circles. I want to know bands that have made it big without a label. What are they doing now? Are they well known enough to tour and make some serious money? Where's their income? I'm serious - this is the crux of the issue (not established bands) - how does an unknown band make a decent living, and where are the examples?
      • DrvThruPnk, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Look up the band "Dispatch". They are not together anymore, but it wasn't because they did not 'make it'.
        • thailand1972, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Never heard of them, sorry. Not that I'm the arbiter of deciding if a band is/was famous or not, but this name doesn't even ring a faint bell. If they "made it", tell me the level of their success - did they do a world tour for example?
        • radioactivematt, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2they were only one of the biggest independent bands in the us in case you missed them...they were especially big among a lot of college students, arguably those who download more music than a lot of other groups
        • radioactivematt, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2i forgot to add that dispatch just reunited for a few shows and sold out madison square gardnen mere minutes. their last show was a free show in boston a few years ago, it attracted 30,000 plus people.
        • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1but that was kind of when all the napster stuff was first happening and they didn't become popular that way...they became popular from touring at colleges and friends would tell friends about this great band they saw...i know that my friends at penn state and maryland saw them in like 2000 or so.
      • Kronos6948, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3I hate to admit it, but you're getting dugg down because you're right. There's no real internet darling band that has made a big name for themselves (yet). Every band that I listen to (and there's some obscure ones) is either on a record label (sometimes small record labels), or at least was on one before they got famous.
        Once more people start visiting sites like Purevolume and Last FM, where you can submit your own music and have it played, then, maybe the popularity will grow. Sad thing is that there may be a lot of people on the internet, but a lot of your casual music fans don't go to sites like that. They still listen to the regular radio, MTV, and Pop culture to get their new listening music. Hell, even Sattellite radio doesn't play bands that don't have record labels, and that's what a lot of people are listening to nowadays.
        • thailand1972, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1That's how I see it too - I'm an amateur musician (just write for fun) and I know the "scene" fairly well online (the amateur music scene). "Success" with online muso's tends to be landing a sound engineering job or doing the odd jingle for an advert, or something along those lines. Maybe even do some music for a documentary. In no way have I ever heard of a band/artist make it really big from an amateur background online. And judging by Digg, it would seem everyone is obsessed with listening and downloading music that is owned by labels (it's laughable).
      • Sawta, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4There's a reason why you will not have your question answered. It's because you will (most likely) never EVER see stations like VH1 or MTV informing the public that there are ways to get music for free.

        Without the support of television, it is unlikely that you will hear of success stories from bands that get big without the help of a label (except through the Internet of course). I'm not sure if this is a "satisfying" answer, but I'm sure you already knew the answer to your own question, unless you were expecting some foreign band to be mentioned in which case you could claim that it "doesn't count" since you've never heard of them, therefore they aren't big enough.

        What does "making it big" even translate to? Putting out a record that (number out of my ass) people purchase? Being able to support yourself on making music? Having people pay over 100$ to come to see you play on stage? Depending on the artist, this definition could be widely different.
        • thailand1972, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Making it big = world tour, very comfortable lifestyle (hundreds of thousands of dollars), world famous (which allows the world tour). The TV won't promote unknown bands without money; this isn't free plugs - you think labels don't pay TV to get their artists plugged? TV is just a medium that is used for the marketing and advertising - who is paid to promote the unknown, unsigned artist?
      • sHockz, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1there arent. but they havent allowed it yet is the problem. if itunes became free tomorrow, and i could download music that easily from any band, and any band could make a web page and start their "band", i bet you would see a lot more of those examples your looking for. unfortunately, we have to know what we already want, so when one goes looking for music to dload they usually arent looking for some off the wall band. now if the content was there, and free, i think you would be singing a different tune.
        • thailand1972, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Huh? You're saying that you need itunes to make music free? WTF?? There's been free music on offer by amateur musicians online for the last 10 years. Where have you been man??? You think itunes is the only way to get music online?? That is one naive comment. The internet has millions of mp3s available for download by amateur artists for zero cost (unless you want to donate). If you're the "average" music lover, no wonder nobody's made it big without the help of a label - people seem to need their new music hand-delivered to them.
      • sw1ft, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2What about Panic at the Disco? All their original recognition and huge fan base came from Myspace and Purevolume. They were number 1 on Myspace's indie chart which eventually helped get their video played on TRL in 2005. That same video ended winning Video of the Year at the 2006 MTV Video Music Awards. All this with very, very little help from their label, Decaydance.
      • jon30041, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2thailand, you're right. Hoorah for people digging you down because they don't like the truth.
      • ald4ngo, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I agree. People (especially on here) forget how much it actually costs to record an album, or even a few good quality demos. You do need some money to make music, and record labels can front the money to make that happen.
        • thailand1972, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Well I'd say it's getting cheaper and cheaper to make music. The big problem is promotion, and that costs a lot of money. Even without a label, you need to hire a promoter / agent because they will have contacts and can get you exposure quickly. That costs.
      • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I think you're right. I do question however if the run that big-name bands had been having beforehand was ever natural, or something that necessarily should continue.

        Big name bands had great success in part because the barriers to entry without the right contract with the right label were great, and they collected the revenues on long and tiring international tours that people may have spent on local bands if they'd ever had the proper opportunity to care for them. Was this a good thing? In terms of making it big, the vast majority of musicians dreaming of making it big in a band wallowed in obscurity, and many of the great artists who did make it big became disillusioned with the whole thing. I question whether or not the dream or its spoils were ever particularly healthy. How many people of any sort still have this kind of american dream anyway? Is there some reason that we should put our laws to use in supporting the course of the industry for some reason? Perhaps our dreams should change with the times.
        • thailand1972, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Yeah I agree - I think traditionally it's been an exclusive club (the music industry) where the bouncers let only a few in at a time. Once you're in, it's easy. You get all the exposure, the TV plugs, the radio plays - it's an unstoppable machine. No matter what you do, money folllows. You can right an absolute peice of crap album that tanks, and you still get someone to write your biography for you and make a million off that.

          I hope the future has a more level playing field - more of a meritocracy where the PEOPLE truly promote the best music through word of mouth and mainstream media becomes untrusted. This will mean the death of superbands (no great loss) but more bands will get to share in the money from smaller concerts, online donations etc from very loyal, smaller fanbases. Here's hoping.
      • ProfessorApe, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Just recording the demos, songs or albums and getting it pressed isn't enough. The biggest part record labels do is market a band's album, that can cost thousands or millions of dollars depending how dedicated a label is to a particular band. How many local or indie bands do you know that aren't on a label but put ads for their band in mainstream magazines, on tv, the radio, on websites, license songs for commercials or movies, get on billboards, sponsor events, etc? It comes down to having enough money to not only get decent instruments and access to a good recording facility but pay for all the necessary avenues to successfully market something.

        However, as stated above by Sawta, each band or artist defines success differently, for some it's coke parties, stretched limos and teenage girls creaming over them for others its living comfortably (not in ridiculous material excess) on their music, live shows and whatever merchandise they sell.

        Gene Simmons is full of himself and probably somewhat bitter about his life accomplishments. What has this man done that DOESN'T involve KISS? Every time I see another regurgitation of KISS stuff it looks more and more pathetic. Ok, he's rich. So what if he is? Has Gene single-handedly changed the world? Will future generations look back on the 70s-80s and think "Wow, if Gene Simmons hadn't created KISS, the world would be a terrible place to live"? No. There will always be people who love KISS but for Gene to immediately look at his fans as enemies the moment downloading takes off would make me question if he ever loved his fans back or only loved the money and attention. Maybe he's just a guy who needs to be famous so he can sleep at night.
        • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0I don't know about you.. but I would welcome the days when such promotions are dead and gone. Let the bands come into the market on a more level footing and not depend on getting the right contract with the right label.

          I have a feeling that this will all survive in some form, because PR is potentially valuable. They don't need to be responsible for distribution however.
    • EarlOfLade, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4So... Unless someone "make it big" they are a failure?
      Well, in that case, each and every one of us here on Digg are failures. If you can make a decent living off what you do, I think most people would be happy, you see, most of us and most people who make music realize they never will "make it big' but hope to make a living off what they do.

      • BurnTees, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1there's very little middleground with music. i don't think there are a lot of non label bands out there making a decent living...i'm sure most have part time jobs to supplement their income.
    • fkr3, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1No they're not. They're getting noticed by getting signed to decent record labels who get their music out there on the radio and on the tv. Same as always. Nobody's gotten famous off BitTorrent.
    • tetsuwan, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1That's nice 'n all, but merch is not music. I don't care about "merch". I don't even care about CD covers. I'm willing to pay for the music, as long as I can use anyway I like, and it's as easy to get as pirated. The problem is when I have to chose between paying and not paying, and paying requires the biggest effort.
    • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0It's easier than ever to put out your own music, and in a way, a little easier for each little guy to get up on stage (because we care less and less who is 'big'). He talks about the stage and the album, but it's more about the losing the dream of becoming obscenely rich and famous off of a favorable relationship with a cartel.
    • ian9outof10, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1EXACTLY! You are spot on, new musicans can't get near a recording contract because those music execs simply aren't interested in taking a risk. Which is why pop music is SOOOOO boring these days.
  • Ziggygallaway, on 11/15/2007, -1/+74The only thing that made you famous and a success Gene, was a gimmick. That's something that no one can "download" and steal, so, I agree, you are safe. Besides, I don't think anyone is downloading your music for free because IT SUCKS!
    • Pinhedd, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6I have all the great metal bands in my library... KISS isn't among them
  • Schneckehaus, on 11/15/2007, -6/+237Clearly, Gene is unaware how the radio works.
    Free music, amirite?
    How the hell did HE get popular again?
    Oh thats right, FREE DISTRIBUTION ON THE RADIO.
    Same thing, new technology. Get with the times old man, the world is changing and you are losing pace.
    Social evolution ftw.
    • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -20/+13You're an idiot ... in radio, the artist gets paid every time a song is played. It may be free to the end user, but that's because someone else paid for it. P2P networks only take, they don't pay anyone
      • Frei, on 11/15/2007, -2/+18Yeah radios never had a means of recording.
        • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -14/+2Yeah, a crappy analog recording
        • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7I need to clarify my last statement. Anyone who was alive in the cassette era knows that if they really wanted to have a recording of something they needed to buy it. The radio recordings never were that good, and if you say they are you are kidding yourself. I know most of the people here were not alive (or at music listening age) when cassettes ruled the scene, but it recording off of the radio wasn't pretty.
        • Kronos6948, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5Plus, how often do you hear a song from beginning to end without either the end of the song before it over top, or having the DJ talk over top of it?
        • cozmoz365, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3@PA42 Never copied a friends casette????
          • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1still was analog and ***** ... plus that it is off topic, the issue was radio, not copying cassettes.
        • Sawta, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3@ PA42's third statement:
          So, your claiming that your point is still valid simply because technology was too limited to make a decent recording of the radio? Sure, you are definitely correct in that they sounded terrible in comparison, but I think its a weak argument as a whole.
          I would say that the only major thing that separates P2P from radio would be that you are not forced into listening to what someone puts on, and you don't have to suffer through comericals. Oh, and of course things like viruses and being Rick Rolled or whatever.
          • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Those are other valid points against P2P. My point in the quality is that there needs to be a balance of fairness.
            Back in the cassette era, there was copyright infringement, but it was minor.
            You could record music from the radio in low quality and had to deal with the other problems (including DJ's) and the artist originally got paid.
            You could copy someone's tape, but it was once again low quality and you had to actually know the person. This makes a big difference. Pirates often argue that this does not matter, but it does. Having to go and find someone slows infringement a lot, as apposed to giving it to everyone.
            If people were only using P2P to give to their actual physical friends you would see less push back.

            From the RIAA perspective they need to treat the consumers fair too. This means less DRM, higher quality etc. But handling the RIAA is very different than handling pirates. The RIAA is guilty of holding on to a ***** business model, The pirates are guilty of breaking the law.
          • Schneckehaus, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Pirates like yourself, PA42?
            Or do you mean the other pirates, the bad ones that rape artists and fund terrorism?

            So it's okay to steal mp3s as long as i do it at 90 kbps?
      • MasteRR, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5"in radio, the artist gets paid every time a song is played."

        Wrong. Radio stations do not have to pay traditional royalties. Why? Because it was decided that it is nothing more than free publicity.
        • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5No, you are just plain wrong here ... radio stations do pay, that's why internet radio stations that choose not to pay have been getting in trouble.
        • jon30041, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Part of the problem with paying, PA42, is that the cost of playing songs on webcast is HUGE. That needs to be taken care of. I agree with you otherwise.
          • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2I don't defend the RIAA business model. I just stopped buying their music. Personally I believe piracy on a mass scale is immoral, so I don't do that either.
            I agree with you on the webcast point 100%. The problem is that piracy hurts the chances for fairness. Boycotts would work if people had the conviction to actually boycott it and not just steal it. DISCLAIMER: if you don't think it is stealing, then replace that word with whatever semantically different word you choose.
        • blagoaw, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0PA42..

          Googling for "pay to play" radio:
          http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1591155
          http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/pa ...
          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/business/media/0 ...
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5085986.s ...

          I'm wondering if you are an all-out shill or just extremely naive. Whether radio stations technically pay royalties or not, there are still plenty of people who have a very rational interest in getting wider exposure.. and they're willing to pay for it.
          • PA42, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1There are scumbags, scam artists and illegal dealings in all industries and the music industry is no exception.
            This doesn't effect the piracy situation anyhow, since the copyright holder still gave the radio stations permission to play the music.
        • nipples8, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0Artists get paid per play on the radio ( .07 cents per spin in CA). Do some research before spewing nonsense.
        • Tarkaan, on