October 2010

UPDATE: Simmons' Websites Under Attack

Kiss star Gene Simmons has accused the music industry of not reacting fast enough to curb the problem of illegal file-sharing.

The bassist said lawsuits should have been issued against illegal downloaders sooner and that the error had cost “hundreds of thousands of jobs” in the industry.

“The music industry was asleep at the wheel and didn't have the balls to sue every fresh-faced, freckle-faced college kid who downloaded material,” Simmons said.

“And so now we're left with hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. There's no industry."

The bassist added: "Make sure your brand is protected. Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don't let anybody cross that line."

Simmons was speaking at the MIPCOM convention in Cannes, France, reports Ars Technica. The convention is a content market for multi-platform entertainment.

The problem of illegal file-sharing has continued to blight the music industry over the last decade.

http://www.gigwise.com/ne...le-Sharers

[Edited 10/17/10 10:58am]

what a simpleton

preventing people from downloading music 'illegally' is impossible

it'll always happen , it's inevitable

Gene Simmons can suck my balls.

They also didn't have the brass to try to adapt. The music and movie companies are still fighting Apple for no real reason other than they're scared to lose physical album sales. Why, I don't know. Isn't money the same to them regardless of where it comes from?

It was stoppable, or at least deterrable. If there had immediately been a serious fear of legal action far fewer people would have gotten into it. That's exactly what the movie industry is TRYING to do - scare people away from the process. But that's no longer possible with music downloading. Kids grow up with the knowledge that music can be easily downloaded any number of ways, both legal and otherwise.

Gene Simmons has done his fair share to destroy the industry himself.

The man is walking greed.

This old geezer still thinks that we're living in the 70s, the 80s or evern the late-90s...

people download music, as BklynBabe has said, just like they borrowed the Cd's of their friends and copied them in a Sony tape or whatever... I remember that during the 89-96 there was concern if the CD copies could "destroy" the music industry,...the solution? the industry vastly reduced the price of CD's, specially the Cd's of classic/old artists of the 60s,70s,80s, etc.

But if the current assholes of the industry think that 19-20$ is a reasonable price for an average pop/rock CD album of the 00s, then they're nuts. Kiss last album doesn't even deserve more than 4 bucks...

Sell the new music for 7-9 bucks, and you'll see that the people will buy original CD's again...people are just tired of spending 20$ in order to make a lot intermediaries rich...

[Edited 10/9/10 5:26am]

Like anybody has downloaded his shit anyway...

You know something, in a sense he's right. If one makes a product, the he should be compensated for it. However, there is a problem when it comes to a commodity like music and movies. Both industries dropped the ball, when it came to the internet. They should have said to themselves, "Hey, this is a great way to make money and get our product out there". Now, that this thing has grown by leaps and bounds, they are upset and want to make us pay for it. That's when it becomes, like a child crying over spilled milk. Don't blame or penalize me, for you not being fast enough. I personally believe that the record and movie studio's have more of a hand in the file-sharing world, than they are willing to admit. Case in point, I remember reading an article about the first version of the movie, "The Hulk". A movie executive got an advanced copy of the movie and gave it to his son. His son, then uploaded it and shared it, via a file-sharing site. I forget, what happened to the son, but it just goes to show, that they have more of a hand in it, than they want us to know. As a Dj, I used it to find rare mixes of songs that you could not find anywhere else. Other than that, I rarely downloaded.

[Edited 10/9/10 6:27am]

If an performer wants to make the big money, they don't have to worry about selling records or free downloading. Just do this:

shorttrini said:

You know something, in a sense he's right. If one makes a product, the he should be compensated for it. However, there is a problem when it comes to a commodity like music and movies. Both industries dropped the ball, when it came to the internet. They should have said to themselves, "Hey, this is a great way to make money and get our product out there". Now, that this thing has grown by leaps and bounds, they are upset and want to make us pay for it. That's when it becomes, like a child crying over spilled milk. Don't blame or penalize me, for you not being fast enough. I personally believe that the record and movie studio's have more of a hand in the file-sharing world, than they are willing to admit. Case in point, I remember reading an article about the first version of the movie, "The Hulk". A movie executive got an advanced copy of the movie and gave it to his son. His son, then uploaded it and shared it, via a file-sharing site. I forget, what happened to the son, but it just goes to show, that they have more of a hand in it, than they want us to know. As a Dj, I used it to find rare mixes of songs that you could not find anywhere else. Other than that, I rarely downloaded.

[Edited 10/9/10 6:27am]

Its the same thing as when an artist turns around after their album doesnt sell well, they say, "the label didnt promote me, they didnt release the right singles etc..." just look at the complaints that JD had when Janets album didnt sell well here. Its the same analogy, bite the hand that feeds you, times are different, no artist like Janet Mariah etc...should bitch about an album selling well or being promoted, because look at the business model they were part of creating, a visual one, not a musical one, now that system only wants young-ones to promote and the older ones are out, so they bitch.

That is basically what simmons is latching on to, People want music for free because its POSSIBLE and very easy to get it for free, im tired of hearing people say, "Music is everywhere, look at everyone, almost 95% of people you see have headphones on and an mp3 player of some sort, but look deeper and about 2% of what they have was bought. NOW how do you figure out to get that number up? this is alot different than 1975 when you taped a song off the radio and some old school shit where you can hear your family talking in the background of the song you just taped, this is 100% copied with no difference. BUT the issue that, the new wave of music fan, does not care what the artist does, what they make, who played on the record, who wrote the song, what the artwork is, so now digital is nothing more than a faceless bunch of tunes, shit you dont even see what you got, nothing is there to plug up that gap. There was no way that labels could have stopped this stuff, once technology stepped out this was bound to happen, its like being a crackhead and then complaining about the crack dealers. Digital is simple easy, almost everyone in the world has a computer, so there is nothing that can be done.

andykeen said:

Like anybody has downloaded his shit anyway...

for real

lastdecember said:

BUT the issue that, the new wave of music fan, does not care what the artist does, what they make, who played on the record, who wrote the song, what the artwork is, so now digital is nothing more than a faceless bunch of tunes, shit you dont even see what you got, nothing is there to plug up that gap. There was no way that labels could have stopped this stuff, once technology stepped out this was bound to happen, its like being a crackhead and then complaining about the crack dealers. Digital is simple easy, almost everyone in the world has a computer, so there is nothing that can be done.

Too true....that genie is never goin back in the bottle.

Your preceding point saddens me (as also true) though. The digital age has us in a spot where the artist is often not valued (financially or artistically) beyond selfish "immediate musical emotion".

Noted in another thread last week...someone's observation, that the expressionless masses all walk around with nothing more than shitty earbuds crammed in their heads & that "musical note icon" on their Ipod screen. To me, that's a sad-ass state of affairs.

Gene Simmons is WAY wrong on this subject....but I hope we find a "better way" 4 us all.

People who fight the progression of technology instead of adapting to it always lose.

Somebody put this fossil back in his museum.

JamFanHot said:

lastdecember said:

BUT the issue that, the new wave of music fan, does not care what the artist does, what they make, who played on the record, who wrote the song, what the artwork is, so now digital is nothing more than a faceless bunch of tunes, shit you dont even see what you got, nothing is there to plug up that gap. There was no way that labels could have stopped this stuff, once technology stepped out this was bound to happen, its like being a crackhead and then complaining about the crack dealers. Digital is simple easy, almost everyone in the world has a computer, so there is nothing that can be done.

Too true....that genie is never goin back in the bottle.

Your preceding point saddens me (as also true) though. The digital age has us in a spot where the artist is often not valued (financially or artistically) beyond selfish "immediate musical emotion".

Noted in another thread last week...someone's observation, that the expressionless masses all walk around with nothing more than shitty earbuds crammed in their heads & that "musical note icon" on their Ipod screen. To me, that's a sad-ass state of affairs.

Gene Simmons is WAY wrong on this subject....but I hope we find a "better way" 4 us all.

Too be honest GENE shouldnt even care about this subject because he is from a different era and has an already established audience, plus his audience shells out tons of money for his stuff, and he owns everything. I think older artists just need to capitalize on what they got, they have a core fan base and core loyal fan bases will BUY you, not steal you for the most part, i mean people still shell out tons of $$$ on artists they have always liked, i do it all the time, i could care less about the new Rihanna cd, but if theres a new Rick Springfield cd i will be buying it and a limited edition if there is one, that is what artists that have been around need to capitalize on. Gene should let this go, its not going to change like i said, the day of the artist is over because the day of the music fan is over for the most part, sad but true.

I wish more of the digital music audience was as "educated" as you & I...I also ALWAYS make sure artists I love or respect get paid.

Then again, I guess it's a good thing they ain't churnin' classics out by the dozen these days, either.

I mean, If Stevie released "Songs In The Key Of Life" today ala Raidohead (digital DL..."pay as you will").....I'd pay $200 for that MF & STILL feel like I ripped Mr. Morris off

JamFanHot said:

I wish more of the digital music audience was as "educated" as you & I...I also ALWAYS make sure artists I love or respect get paid.

Then again, I guess it's a good thing they ain't churnin' classics out by the dozen these days, either.

I mean, If Stevie released "Songs In The Key Of Life" today ala Raidohead (digital DL..."pay as you will").....I'd pay $200 for that MF & STILL feel like I ripped Mr. Morris off

Well i agree, i mean i dont have anything against Rihanna personally but i could care less who played or wrote or produced her record because the system isnt set up for me to care about those things from her. Now as far as digital, i have no real issue with it, however i still like the physical copy of things, i mean i just dropped about 60 bucks this weekend on the 3cd/dvd set from a-ha (import) and picked up some other import singles too, and on the digital note, the last Rick Springfield album "Venus in Overdrive" was released 4 different ways to 4 different outlets, so i ended up buying this record 4 times, 3 digitally and one hard copy all had different tracks tossed on, did i feel ripped off, hell no, i got a quality album from a quality artist

@ Gene Simmons thinking people give a damn about what he says

[img:$uid]http://www.cherrybombed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/GeneSimmonsBananaJrPrintAd.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_JMGyP--BgilC5AbCHWxoPeOkHMkb5W1wrppr2eUCEHYKjco&t=1&usg=__VpbHSpKO1NMbgORK5f8-pEU3NF8=[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqFi1gO0IFitL63am9wFaWXF9Wcgif0lLASKF-DvXH0opWhBo&t=1&usg=__RPQxAp-btvlRB_x-xC-Hc2SyufE=[/img:$uid]

Integrity? You BETCHA.....

Superstition said:

They also didn't have the brass to try to adapt. The music and movie companies are still fighting Apple for no real reason other than they're scared to lose physical album sales. Why, I don't know. Isn't money the same to them regardless of where it comes from?

Not when you've been used to having all the power to dictate prices of how much albums, tapes and CDs were going to cost and how that music was to be distributed.

Record companies think they got caught with their pants down when the agreed to pay Apple .29 cents for each song sold for .99 cents. With Apple controlling 70% of the legal digital downloading, music and movie companies have had to negotiate price points, something they haven't been use to doing. Seeing that Apple is the only game in town at this juncture, Job's & Company have been more than willing to play hardball on waht "they think" singles and digital albums should cost.

Their way or the highway . . .

[Edited 10/19/10 5:41am]

Just saw Gene's Porn.....man he has a small cock....and he fucks the hottest chick!! not cool

It was just inevitable that it would happen one day. I couldn't have myself predicted in the 90s that it would be due to filesharing, but it had to be something with the digital format becoming easier and easier to copy. The problem is that the "industry" was getting its revenue from selling the storage media and the package and not from the product that it claimed to be selling.

If you look at, say, the dairy industry then they're obviously operating on completely different grounds. When you buy a carton of milk or yogurt you pay for the edible content of the product itself and not the cardboard container around it. Packaging and the P&R campaigns for these type of products obviously contribute to the costs that the companies have as well, but...

... uhm, what the hell was this thread about anyway? Gene Simmons? Why did I end up writing about milk and yogurt?

Whenever anyone posts or talks about the music industry and lawsuits over this...I am

reminded of something MJ said way back in early 2003.

HOLLYWOOD - Michael Jackson is speaking out against new legislation that would make downloading copyrighted material over the Internet a felony punishable by jail time.

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download but the answer cannot be jail," Jackson said in a statement. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish that would not be forgotten."

Lawmakers introduced the bill currently under consideration, called the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners Protection and Security Act of 2003, July 16 in the House of Representatives. The act would make downloading songs over the Web a felony offense.

"Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws," he said. "We should look to new technologies, like Apple's new Itunes Music Store, for solutions. This way, innovation continues to be the hallmark of America."

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Michael_Jackson_Slams_Music_Piracy_Bill/1722880

JamFanHot said:

[img:$uid]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_JMGyP--BgilC5AbCHWxoPeOkHMkb5W1wrppr2eUCEHYKjco&t=1&usg=__VpbHSpKO1NMbgORK5f8-pEU3NF8=[/img:$uid]

you just ruined my whole life.

errant said:

JamFanHot said:

[img:$uid]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_JMGyP--BgilC5AbCHWxoPeOkHMkb5W1wrppr2eUCEHYKjco&t=1&usg=__VpbHSpKO1NMbgORK5f8-pEU3NF8=[/img:$uid]

you just ruined my whole life.

I can't say I don't wanna see this porno...just to see if the hype as big as been speculated.

errant said:

JamFanHot said:

[img:$uid]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_JMGyP--BgilC5AbCHWxoPeOkHMkb5W1wrppr2eUCEHYKjco&t=1&usg=__VpbHSpKO1NMbgORK5f8-pEU3NF8=[/img:$uid]

you just ruined my whole life.

Pepto Bismol anyone?

BklynBabe said:

To me it's like taping music off the radio or borrowing yoir friend's cd to copy. Folk will find ways if they don't want to pay.

That's EXACTLY what I've always said. Nobody had a problem back in the day when we used to hold our cassette recorders up to the radio and made our own mixtapes. Same with movies; nobody had a problem when we used our VCR's to record television shows. That's ALL blank tapes used to be sold for!

Sandino said:

errant said:

you just ruined my whole life.

I can't say I don't wanna see this porno...just to see if the hype as big as been speculated.

I've always thought Gene Simmons was rather attractive, so I did not find his porno a disappointment. He may not have the endowment you'd expect of a ROCK GOD, but he's got nothing to be ashamed of (...in my humble opinion, lol).