Tremolina said:

Mong said:

Man, there is a lot of ignorance being spouted in this thread. You can't comment on the "evils" of the industry when you haven't got any experience of dealing with it. You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?

What do you know about anybody in here? Nothing. Here is news for ya: Everybody has to pay the bills and abide the laws, artists including. By the way, I have plenty of experience with the entertainment industry, including musicians.

Mong is actually Prince. And he is about to take a second job to support his music habit.

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?

I think the problem is that they lose a lot of money selling albums through Apple, which takes so much of the profit compared to a psychical CD. It's all fucked up. Gene Simmons doesn't have it right, but I don't defend stealers, either. They're not helping the industry, which is getting lazier and lazier about releases. Why bother anymore?

VinnyM27 said:

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?

I think the problem is that they lose a lot of money selling albums through Apple, which takes so much of the profit compared to a psychical CD. It's all fucked up. Gene Simmons doesn't have it right, but I don't defend stealers, either. They're not helping the industry, which is getting lazier and lazier about releases. Why bother anymore?

That's not true. They don't lose a lot of money selling through itunes. If they do not join itunes THEN they lose money.

What is true is that Apple can take the lion share of the profits of the itunes salers because they control the digital distribution network that is i-tunes. They are the new middleman of the internet and are just about the only one really doing good business with it.

Record companies are jealous as fuck, because they used to control that position. Now they have to ask Apple and be glad with 30% instead of the other way around.

ZombieKitten said:

Tremolina said:

What do you know about anybody in here? Nothing. Here is news for ya: Everybody has to pay the bills and abide the laws, artists including. By the way, I have plenty of experience with the entertainment industry, including musicians.

Mong is actually Prince. And he is about to take a second job to support his music habit.

Ah I see now. That's where the "You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?" comment came from

EmbattledWarrior said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Home taping was controlled my the 1992 DART bill that was passed through congress

DART meaning Digital Audio Recorders and Tapes, this enabled a bundled in royalty rate to be added into the purchase of that type of equipment,

IE the industry gets a fee for people purchasing that type of equipment

Where congress kinda F**ed up is that this bill didn't include the internet or personal computers.

So once computers and the internet became popular, it was already too late,

to this day companies like Apple are constantly battling congress so they don't have to pay DART monies to the industry.

heres a wikipedia on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Exceptions

I personally think involving mp3 players and computers involved in the DART legislature, would mend the wound.

but it would then make computers way too pricey and in the long run wouldn't solve the problem.

Apple claims that, by them creating the itunes music store, it makes the DART legislature inapplicable, in which they're probably right.

In which they are right. Hometaping legislation moreover was never meant for computers, nor did it ever have compensation for filesharing as a motivation. The idea behind is nothing more than compensation for hometaping / copies for private use, on indivisual physical carriers like cassettes and cdr's etc. Filesharing is not even comparable, which is why stautory compensation for it would never lead to a fair and balanced result (some people never share files, others share millions a year). The record and movie industry moreover would want an an enormous fee for it per computer sold, or else no deal. Since congress won't make computers 20% more expensive, such a thing therefore will not happen.

Nope, adapting hometaping legislation is not the answer.

Adapting your business models to the internet is.

andykeen said:

Like anybody has downloaded his shit anyway...

Gene Simmons is nothing but a bitter,whiny,old,irrelevent bitch.He's always in the media complaining about one thing or another A year or so ago,he was whining because KISS wasn't inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.He needs to sit his tired ass down and shut up.

Tremolina said:

ZombieKitten said:

Mong is actually Prince. And he is about to take a second job to support his music habit.

Ah I see now. That's where the "You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?" comment came from

he doesn't want us to think that if we all gave him $77 each that he has enough to cover it all

ZombieKitten said:

Tremolina said:

Ah I see now. That's where the "You are all aware that "artists" have to pay rent and bills?" comment came from

he doesn't want us to think that if we all gave him $77 each that he has enough to cover it all

If he only has ten thousand fans left willing to pay that kind of money in return of possibly nothing, then it's no wonder he had to leave the 3121 house that cost him something lik 50 -70.000 a month?

Insane really.

-

[Edited 10/20/10 16:17pm]

Tremolina said:

VinnyM27 said:

I think the problem is that they lose a lot of money selling albums through Apple, which takes so much of the profit compared to a psychical CD. It's all fucked up. Gene Simmons doesn't have it right, but I don't defend stealers, either. They're not helping the industry, which is getting lazier and lazier about releases. Why bother anymore?

That's not true. They don't lose a lot of money selling through itunes. If they do not join itunes THEN they lose money.

What is true is that Apple can take the lion share of the profits of the itunes salers because they control the digital distribution network that is i-tunes. They are the new middleman of the internet and are just about the only one really doing good business with it.

Record companies are jealous as fuck, because they used to control that position. Now they have to ask Apple and be glad with 30% instead of the other way around.

NOt really though because iTunes is anoter hand in the pocket, labels still get money for albums sold, this is just another way to sell them, if that were the case than stores that SOLD cd's would have made money and not labels, but we know by the fact that all the stores being closed now that the labels were getting paid, stores werent. So this joint venture is another hand in the pocket, regardless of how its done, its still coming out of the artists, which is why some like Jayz and others are fighting the sale of "individual" tracks etc....this is more or less looting the artists from everything, unless they own all their work straight out, and right now there arent too many artists that own every single part of their career. LEts not think iTunes isnt just another collector, sure its a source to get digital out there, but someone needed to put the handle on digital day one, not necessarily known how to sell it, but know how to keep it from being stolen, no one including iTunes has figured that it, despite its rising sales, its rising because there isnt anything out there that sells music, shit, sales at Barnes and Noble are up, but thats because all other book vendors are gone, thats what is being missed, are you selling more music, or just making more money, big difference, the rise of sales and the loss of sales is very lopsided in terms of loss.

The whole itunes debate is pretty stupid

before Itunes, the manufacturing cost to make a cd, ranged from 25 to 30% of the album

Itunes just recently raised their rate to 30% per unit.

so it pretty much averages to the same ratio

however music is being sold alot cheaper 9.99 compared to 16 -18 dollar cd price it use to be.

so thats where you see the screw job.

but thats not apples fault...

thats the industry's fault...

lastdecember said:

Tremolina said:

That's not true. They don't lose a lot of money selling through itunes. If they do not join itunes THEN they lose money.

What is true is that Apple can take the lion share of the profits of the itunes salers because they control the digital distribution network that is i-tunes. They are the new middleman of the internet and are just about the only one really doing good business with it.

Record companies are jealous as fuck, because they used to control that position. Now they have to ask Apple and be glad with 30% instead of the other way around.

NOt really though because iTunes is anoter hand in the pocket, labels still get money for albums sold, this is just another way to sell them, if that were the case than stores that SOLD cd's would have made money and not labels, but we know by the fact that all the stores being closed now that the labels were getting paid, stores werent. So this joint venture is another hand in the pocket, regardless of how its done, its still coming out of the artists, which is why some like Jayz and others are fighting the sale of "individual" tracks etc....this is more or less looting the artists from everything, unless they own all their work straight out, and right now there arent too many artists that own every single part of their career. LEts not think iTunes isnt just another collector, sure its a source to get digital out there, but someone needed to put the handle on digital day one, not necessarily known how to sell it, but know how to keep it from being stolen, no one including iTunes has figured that it, despite its rising sales, its rising because there isnt anything out there that sells music, shit, sales at Barnes and Noble are up, but thats because all other book vendors are gone, thats what is being missed, are you selling more music, or just making more money, big difference, the rise of sales and the loss of sales is very lopsided in terms of loss.

I am sorry, I didn't get much of what you were saying but I think I got that part. The thing the entire industry needs to understand, needs to adapt to, needs to take advantage off is, that you can't prevent music, movies, software, videogames, books, pcitures etc. from being "stolen" . the reason is that in the end they are all information and in the end all information is free. Even if you try to lock all information up with incriptions and what not, even when you close part of the internet, it still doesn't prevent it from being spread. Wosre: it ATTRACTS encourages, entices file sharers and hackers to come and "free" it. The nature of information is that it needs to INFORM, it needs to SPREAD, as much as it can.

The industry, whether it be music, films, books or whatever that holds copyrights, need to understand that and use it to their advantage.

I actually think the industry needs to embrace Lossless and FLAC and make it the standard other then convential mp3's and AAC's.

Apple pretty much stripped all the piracy blockers and dongles from their software simply because their software is HUGE You honestly have to spend a month downloading their software because its like 30 - 60 gigs a CD. People love instant gratification, instead of wasting a month you could just buy it.

If dling a song or CD was about 400 mbs to a gig, it would piss alot of people off.

Sure you have the option to down convert your song,

but at least its something

Tremolina said:

The industry, whether it be music, films, books or whatever that holds copyrights, need to understand that and use it to their advantage.

U see thats a good point but is a movie "information"? or is that viewed as an entertainment? I mean say Sean Penn does a new movie does that mean i have a right to pay nothing for it? Thats the issue here mainly, i mean Gene Simmons can talk what he wants because he is paid, his fans are gonna buy his shit and he owns all the masters to all he has ever done, but Joe Schmo doesnt and about 98% of the world doesnt own their stuff. I understand your point and its basically what, say, models do, take a model like Tammy Torres (most dont know her here) but she has an official site licenses her photos, videos, charges members, as do many in her field, and this is how they make their cash because people are ripping them off by just posting their pics,a nd again are the pics "information" or "entertainment" thats a big difference, and why alot sue or at least break file sharers from uploading their stuff, and after awhile filesharers do stop uploading if they keep getting caught doing something they just move on to someone else, but i dont dismissing it as "info" is quite right, i mean that would be like saying a play that i wrote is info, so instead of you paying the admission fee since its info you can walk right in? i dont think so

SoulAlive said:

Gene Simmons is nothing but a bitter,whiny,old,irrelevent bitch.He's always in the media complaining about one thing or another A year or so ago,he was whining because KISS wasn't inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.He needs to sit his tired ass down and shut up.

It that my . . . our SoulAlive calling someone out?

Cuz, I just heard Simmons new asshole rip. OUCH!

Tremolina said:

ZombieKitten said:

he doesn't want us to think that if we all gave him $77 each that he has enough to cover it all

If he only has ten thousand fans left willing to pay that kind of money in return of possibly nothing, then it's no wonder he had to leave the 3121 house that cost him something lik 50 -70.000 a month?

Insane really.

yes, so he should really be looking into the more moderately priced 20Ten villa unit on a subdivided block.

I went looking for the videos and found it on another site.

omg what a joke, but it is definately him. Saw a blurb on the page where he confirmed his identity but ordering a cease and desist on the site(s) showing it. It's all over the world wide web. The porn was so boring. He cannot hold a flame up to Ron jeremy

One of vids has him putting a condom on. Wonder if it was a KISS condom He don't want no paternity case and supporting another spawn

As a long time KISS fan I am disgusted. The man does not care about his long time girlfriend partner or the kids.

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said:

Gene Simmons is nothing but a bitter,whiny,old,irrelevent bitch.He's always in the media complaining about one thing or another A year or so ago,he was whining because KISS wasn't inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.He needs to sit his tired ass down and shut up.

It that my . . . our SoulAlive calling someone out?

Cuz, I just heard Simmons new asshole rip. OUCH!

He's such an annoying idiot.Nobody cares aboout him and his numerous "crusades".KISS was known more for their make-up than for their music,yet this guy acts as if he's so important.Please

lastdecember said:

Tremolina said:

The industry, whether it be music, films, books or whatever that holds copyrights, need to understand that and use it to their advantage.

U see thats a good point but is a movie "information"?

While it is also entertainment it is information just as well, because it can be fixed in a digital file, in binary codes and transmitted all over the world with the click of a mouse. Music, films, books, pictures, games, software whatever. It is all information. A bottle of shampoo on the other hand for example is not information, but merely a tangible good. Not the bottle nor the shampoo can be fixed in binary code and be transmitted as information. However the recepy of the shampoo is information. It can be fixed in binary code and copied and spread endlessly.

or is that viewed as an entertainment? I mean say Sean Penn does a new movie does that mean i have a right to pay nothing for it? Thats the issue here mainly, i mean Gene Simmons can talk what he wants because he is paid, his fans are gonna buy his shit and he owns all the masters to all he has ever done, but Joe Schmo doesnt and about 98% of the world doesnt own their stuff. I understand your point and its basically what, say, models do, take a model like Tammy Torres (most dont know her here) but she has an official site licenses her photos, videos, charges members, as do many in her field, and this is how they make their cash because people are ripping them off by just posting their pics,a nd again are the pics "information" or "entertainment" thats a big difference, and why alot sue or at least break file sharers from uploading their stuff, and after awhile filesharers do stop uploading if they keep getting caught doing something they just move on to someone else, but i dont dismissing it as "info" is quite right, i mean that would be like saying a play that i wrote is info, so instead of you paying the admission fee since its info you can walk right in? i dont think so

Your point seems to be that information is free but entertainment not. However they are the same. My position is not that nobody should pay anymore for books movies or music. My position is that nobody HAS to anymore. There is a choice these days and that's because of computers and the "information highway" that is the internet. Copyright owners need to adapt to that, take advantage of it and make their money in new and innovative ways.

--

[Edited 10/21/10 9:34am]

ZombieKitten said:

Tremolina said:

If he only has ten thousand fans left willing to pay that kind of money in return of possibly nothing, then it's no wonder he had to leave the 3121 house that cost him something lik 50 -70.000 a month?

Insane really.

yes, so he should really be looking into the more moderately priced 20Ten villa unit on a subdivided block.

lol yeah but he can't paint those and put symbols everywhere and change the carpets and build a beauty salon in there...

Tremolina said:

ZombieKitten said:

yes, so he should really be looking into the more moderately priced 20Ten villa unit on a subdivided block.

lol yeah but he can't paint those and put symbols everywhere and change the carpets and build a beauty salon in there...

rubbish! everyone in springvale does that! even if it's a rental property!

Tremolina said:

lastdecember said:

While it is also entertainment it is information just as well, because it can be fixed in a digital file, in binary codes and transmitted all over the world with the click of a mouse. Music, films, books, pictures, games, software whatever. It is all information. A bottle of shampoo on the other hand for example is not information, but merely a tangible good. Not the bottle nor the shampoo can be fixed in binary code and be transmitted as information. However the recepy of the shampoo is information. It can be fixed in binary code and copied and spread endlessly.

or is that viewed as an entertainment? I mean say Sean Penn does a new movie does that mean i have a right to pay nothing for it? Thats the issue here mainly, i mean Gene Simmons can talk what he wants because he is paid, his fans are gonna buy his shit and he owns all the masters to all he has ever done, but Joe Schmo doesnt and about 98% of the world doesnt own their stuff. I understand your point and its basically what, say, models do, take a model like Tammy Torres (most dont know her here) but she has an official site licenses her photos, videos, charges members, as do many in her field, and this is how they make their cash because people are ripping them off by just posting their pics,a nd again are the pics "information" or "entertainment" thats a big difference, and why alot sue or at least break file sharers from uploading their stuff, and after awhile filesharers do stop uploading if they keep getting caught doing something they just move on to someone else, but i dont dismissing it as "info" is quite right, i mean that would be like saying a play that i wrote is info, so instead of you paying the admission fee since its info you can walk right in? i dont think so

Your point seems to be that information is free but entertainment not. However they are the same. My position is not that nobody should pay anymore for books movies or music. My position is that nobody HAS to anymore. There is a choice these days and that's because of computers and the "information highway" that is the internet. Copyright owners need to adapt to that, take advantage of it and make their money in new and innovative ways.

--

[Edited 10/21/10 9:34am]

Actually that isnt correct, its a fine line drawn. First if i dont put my book or film or song on your site, or sharer, you stole it, plain and simple and deal with the law if need be. Most of what is on the net on the file sharing sites was put there but someone else, that sorry to say, isnt legal, if i put my song on youtube then so be it, but if you take it from my site and do it or put it on Rapidshare, then its on you, not me, people need to adapt to that consequence also instead of crying "where fans and want stuff for free", another old argument. Sure the net is this gateway etc... but if you are taking stuff from one place where it is and putting it somewhere else claiming its yours and information that needs to be FREE than that is on you, people need to accept what comes from their actions just as much as the copyright owners need to adapt.

lastdecember said:

Tremolina said:

Actually that isnt correct, its a fine line drawn. First if i dont put my book or film or song on your site, or sharer, you stole it, plain and simple and deal with the law if need be. Most of what is on the net on the file sharing sites was put there but someone else, that sorry to say, isnt legal, if i put my song on youtube then so be it, but if you take it from my site and do it or put it on Rapidshare, then its on you, not me, people need to adapt to that consequence also instead of crying "where fans and want stuff for free", another old argument. Sure the net is this gateway etc... but if you are taking stuff from one place where it is and putting it somewhere else claiming its yours and information that needs to be FREE than that is on you, people need to accept what comes from their actions just as much as the copyright owners need to adapt.

Sorry but Im not following anymore. Of course it isn't legal to share copyright protected works. But the entire point of this discussion is that the laws don't match with reality and that they can't make them match either. The law of the land factually doesn't rule on the internet. The web has its own rules.

Yeah they can sue all the pirates, the websites and the users, as the industry DID, but there will be a dozen or more sites waiting to take their place to serve the hundreds of millions of file sharers out there. They have only lost a lot of money on lawsuits and made themselves extremely unpopular, only encouraging more people to share instead of deterring them.

They can put copy protection on CD's, digital files, mp3 players or computers, but as we have witnessed there too, people do not buy such products, not just because they can't copy, but also because they are a royal pain in the ass and prevent legal copies for private use as well. So that turned out not to be an option either.

What options are there left?

1) Full blown out war

2) Adapt

--

[Edited 10/22/10 5:26am]

Well, it looks like the powers that be are trying to address the issue of piracy.

CNET report, Oct 22, 2010.

Piracy domain seizure bil...ns support

TD3 said:

Well, it looks like the powers that be are trying to address the issue of piracy.

CNET report, Oct 22, 2010.

Piracy domain seizure bil...ns support

[Edited 10/22/10 7:23am]

lastdecember said:

Tremolina said:

The industry, whether it be music, films, books or whatever that holds copyrights, need to understand that and use it to their advantage.

U see thats a good point but is a movie "information"? or is that viewed as an entertainment? I mean say Sean Penn does a new movie does that mean i have a right to pay nothing for it? Thats the issue here mainly, i mean Gene Simmons can talk what he wants because he is paid, his fans are gonna buy his shit and he owns all the masters to all he has ever done, but Joe Schmo doesnt and about 98% of the world doesnt own their stuff. I understand your point and its basically what, say, models do, take a model like Tammy Torres (most dont know her here) but she has an official site licenses her photos, videos, charges members, as do many in her field, and this is how they make their cash because people are ripping them off by just posting their pics,a nd again are the pics "information" or "entertainment" thats a big difference, and why alot sue or at least break file sharers from uploading their stuff, and after awhile filesharers do stop uploading if they keep getting caught doing something they just move on to someone else, but i dont dismissing it as "info" is quite right, i mean that would be like saying a play that i wrote is info, so instead of you paying the admission fee since its info you can walk right in? i dont think so

I doubt Simmons and Stanley own their master tapes, but Polygram/Universal prob. keeps them pretty happy.Funny thing about Simmons, he didn't win "Who Wants to be A Millionaire" (I think he made it past all the questions they practically hand to you) or "Celebrity Apprentice" (for not playing nice as a team member).I also remember Van Halen told them they couldn't use a demo they played on (Simmons had produced Van Halen's first demo, and the VH brothers recorded a couple of songs that were on "Love Gun", that Ace and Peter re-recorded).

I think some artists took the wrong approach towards file sharing, and should've given a crash course in what artists spend money on to come up with finished product, and how promotional costs come out of the artist's pocket most of the time. To me, it should've been a complaint about the recording industry as well as a complaint about new music being distributed.

What they should've said was wrong was when a song or CD is about to come out, to please not post the songs online if you're a true fan. If you have it, keep it to yourself and hold off on sharing it for a while, because you're going to damage my career and livelihood as well as others, by doing this without my consent... but if you (as a fan) see these recordings out there, let my management know, and we'll deal with it. No one will be fined, arrested, etc but legal action will be taken. Of course the fans should be rewarded for monitoring and letting the management know - - autographed stuff, free concert tickets, meet and greet to thank them in person.

The problem with a band putting out live recordings vs bootlegs, is that artists have this bad habit of re-recording parts of it in the studio and calling it "live". The truth comes out in the wash. James Brown at the Apollo was 100 percent Live. Kiss Alive wasn't. The exception to me was Peter Gabriel re-recording for Genesis, because he was wearing a costume and couldn't get the mic close enough to his mouth to sing. You can't tell it's a 1975 recording and he's singing it in 1999. Voice is unchanged.

The audience, the people who buy the music, needed to be treated with some respect and not accuse them of being criminals. Tell people why it's wrong to download and file share, but also be an advocate of the grey area of live bootlegs. Demos I'm on the fence about, to me they can be like stealing someone's journals, but once they're out there, what can anyone do about it. Someone in Prince's camp leaked his demos... but once a few fans have it and share it, there's not a lot he can do about it, even if he goes after websites.

To me, the only things that should be posted are bootlegs, remixes and out of print recordings. Remixes are a grey area, but I think that people come up with some great things (and some not so great things) and should be left alone. It's not like taking a sample, using that to record a new song and selling it without permission, like what happened in the 80s-90s.

Simmons is an okay guy, he likes to act conceited and be all about money and a ladies man, it's part of his persona, but he also jokes a lot about it.

He doesn't make as much money off his recordings as he does the KISS imagery and live shows. They tour a lot.

I think they did a great job with the box set and DVDs that covered their career, but they resell the greatest hits over and over to the point of more hits packages than studio albums.To me, if you do that, they should be limited "tour editions" sold at the shows and some in the stores, and then pulled from the stores when the tour ends.

The comparisons between movies and music and getting them online - movie studios have theaters, airlines, DVDs, cable, and broadcast TV and can recoup their money from a movie. A recording has a one time shot, unless it's licensed for a movie or a show like "Glee" where they will use x amount of songs and pay the songwriter big $$$.

The recording industry is also very different from when Gene Simmons signed papers to Casablanca.

V10LETBLUES said:

TD3 said:

Well, it looks like the powers that be are trying to address the issue of piracy.

CNET report, Oct 22, 2010.

Piracy domain seizure bil...ns support

Even if this proposal overcomes the numerous legal and consitutional, moral and economical objections against it and would become law in the US, it would still do nothing to stop websites outside of US jurisdiction.

And even if there is a US led concerted effort by many countries there will always be plenty of other countries where this kind of legislation does not apply.

And even if it would apply all over the world, then there would still be so many thousands of websites and so many millions of user, offering some form of infringing material, that it will still be impossible to curb it, let alone stop it.