Gene Simmons Wants to Sue All MP3 Downloaders

[inerax]

..... no one is even downloading his music.... why does he care lol.... i would not even put free kiss crap on my computer.

 

[hawkwindeb]

[citation][nom]Rab1d-BDGR[/nom]If you go to that website and scroll down to the bottom you'll see: © 2010 Leslie A. Burgk, P.A. All Rights Reserved.Your argument might have been more convincing if you weren't "violating" someone else's copyright by reposting their stuff without permission.Not that I'm bothered, I don't believe in "owning" Imaginary Property (IP).[/citation]

It only appears to be "violating" someone else's copyright! Your point is that I should not have stated my source in detail word-for-word. Instead I should have just stated the ref and left it at that. However, even if I was wrong and if it was illegal to do what I did, that does not diminish the point I was making that the person posting it was not stealing is wrong based on USA law as well as the laws in many other countries. Again if I was wrong, it just would have maded me look foolish in the manner in which I made the point since I did not forsee that what I was doing was similar to my point.

Now the big HOWEVER, if what you state is true we would not have newspapers quoting sources in detail including copyrighted works, books quoting other sources including text books quoting copyrighted works, etc. The law does allow what I did. I did not claim it was my material. I stated the original source and its location, stated it was an excerpt from that site as an example of what to read, etc.

apocalypseap, most elegantly states how I used the material below, thanks apocalypseap!
[citation][nom]apocalypseap[/nom]Fair Use disagrees:"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[/citation]

 

[dustcrusher]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]I was/am (conflicted) huge KISS fan. However now I feel being part of the KISS Army means being just a sucker to a guy trying to make money, not art nor music, but money, and that somehow "dirties" the feeling of listening to his music.[/citation]

I too like the music, but lost respect for half the band with each passing year of more marketing schlock. Gene's a douche and Paul doesn't seem to care as long as it still gets him tail (the thought is more cringe-worthy with each passing year). Peter's probably not even allowed any say, and is likely glad to have a semi-steady gig, so I can't hate the guy. Ace seems like a cool dude and probably doesn't even think about the merchandising.
[citation][nom]Houndsteeth[/nom]OK, since Gene used the fox and chickens analogy....[/citation]
Nicely done and upvoted. Gene is sadly typical of the old business model and mentality.

It's true, piracy doesn't hurt the artists much. If they are lucky they make ~ 8-12 cents per album sold.

However, songwriters (whose income from their craft depends on royalties) are doubly screwed. They lose royalties from music sharing and they have a tough time making decent money without dealing with the major labels.

I know songwriters in this town are working hard to move past the old model, but I think we're looking at the last generation of traditional songwriters. Writign commercial jingles, soundtracks, and royalty-free/flat-fee songs won't be an option anymore- it'll be mandatory.

Other than that it doesn't bother me much. Most real fans will support artists anyway and buy merch/concert tickets/CDs at the merch table. If more pirates did this it wouldn't be an issue; don't just talk the "I'm only fighting the man" talk, buy some stuff from the bands you like. The system is broken, but nobody likes a freeloader.

 

[makelovenotwar]

Screw you Simmons, go slang some more Dr Pepper you soulless shill

 

[hardwarekid9756]

It's silly. He's bemoaning the loss of "the music industry." What this means is that he's bemoaning 15-million-dollar albums and record label profit. For 10 grand, a kid off the street can produce a kick-ass album in their basement, pop it on iTunes and make his money back. Then, with said notoriety, he can go do shows and play venues and make a living, just like any other honest person, and not be a celebrity star.

Gene is a dying lion scraping at the last vestige of monopolistic profitability from the "art industry". Music has become decentralized. It's power has been given back "to the people." It's "grassroots" again. Record labels are not needed anymore. Multi-million-dollar investments in "potential stars" isn't necessary anymore. Promotion of bands is back in the hands of the musician, not the publicists or marketing firms, and the "old lions" are scared of the new world the "young cubs" have ushered in. This is nothing more than a farmer afraid to switch out his mule for a tractor.

 

[danny69t]

yeah...so what i understand from the story: the farmer(Gene) f*cked some cute chick, got her pregnant, she wanted to cash in on him, his wife found out, and divorced him, took a lot of his money and the kids, found another guy with more cash, and the farmer(Gene) wants to make more money again. =))

what a douchebag, money hungry pig.

 

[Guest]

you will pay