

KISS frontman on P2P: "Sue them all" - twymer
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/kiss-frontman-we-should-have-sued-them-all.ars

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

~~~
jrockway
The funny part is that he is innovating to increase revenue, but that his "sue
everyone" plan will kill off that stream, too.

He wants to have KISS-branded TVs. Fine. But if nobody listens to KISS, then
the brand will be worthless. If he starts suing people who know what is brand
is, he'll be tarnishing its reputation. Nobody cares about legally right, they
care that he sues 7-year-olds and grandmas. So then the brand is destroyed,
and the branded-crap revenue stream falls off, too.

Artists should not run businesses.

~~~
leftnode
Neither should executives, apparently. At least in the music industry.

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

~~~
hugh3
What does that even mean, as a criticism?

Has not KISS made better music than thousands of other bands who "cared about
music" more? I'm pretty ambivalent about KISS myself, but they make music
which many people enjoy and which is technically pretty good by rock 'n roll
standards, so what does it mean to impugn their motives?

~~~
Corrado
No, this is not criticism. KISS have repeatedly stated that they are in it for
the money, not the music. If they don't get paid (well) they wont play, it's
that simple. They don't "jam" with other bands, they know the songs that they
perform and that's about it.

They are the Microsoft of the music industry.

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

~~~
slantyyz
The problem has less to do with the companies than it does with us.

As Eric Schmidt said in his Atlantic interview, 70% of the laws are written by
lobbyists. The masses clearly aren't outraged enough by this process, and
industries with decrepit business models get away with using the legal system
to protect themselves.

If people came out for fairer copyright laws in the same numbers that the Tea
Partyers do, don't you think some politicians would take heed?

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

Sharing is caring

~~~
hugh3
Gene Simmons was born in 1948, and cassette tapes didn't come into widespread
consumer use until the mid-70s.

So, no, I'm sure he wasn't swapping cassette tapes as a kid. He was probably
saving up to buy records.

~~~
VBprogrammer
But he probably was going to music venues to listen to records without the
appropriate public performance rights.

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

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

~~~
aspir
Fun fact 2: Gene wasn't the frontman, Paul Stanley was. :)

Fun fact 3: I'm submitting for dishonorable discharge from the KISS army
because of this article :(

------
jcromartie
Now that's the _real_ spirit of rock and roll!

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

------
jrockway
The music industry should realize that piracy is a good thing. Nobody listens
to KISS (or pirates KISS), but because there are no good numbers on piracy,
they can blame piracy instead of their own inability to create good music.

If they eliminate piracy, then they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

------
siglesias
A little miffed here at what seems to be the HN consensus. Stealing is not
okay. It's not sound ethical reasoning to point to the fact that someone is
wealthy, technophobic, or might not otherwise have fame to justify not paying
for their content.

Piracy is not the only way to sample content, nor is it the only way to
acquire DRM-free music online.

EDIT: Interesting that some folks are acting like they are not advocating
privacy, only revolt over how stringent the fines are.

1) That's clearly not what the consensus is. Most of the top comments to this
forum are ad hominem attacks on KISS over the quality of their music, or their
somehow "not getting" how piracy HELPS them (which is hilarious).

2) The expected value of your fine is reasonable. It's the probability of you
getting caught times the fine. That in essence is your calculus when you
decide to download an album for free instead of paying for it, that your
expected loss is still less than the cost per CD. Seen in this light the fine
is set appropriately.

~~~
mquander
Scale of OK-ness:

1) Downloading a KISS album from BitTorrent:

 _A little bit not-OK_

2) Prosecuting some kid who downloads a KISS album from BitTorrent, costing
him or his family tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars:

 _Extremely not-OK_

~~~
hugh3
That's silly. If you agree that something is both illegal and immoral, then
how is prosecution not an appropriate response?

~~~
lukifer
It's the proportionality of the prosecution. If it was a hundred dollar fine
and 10 hours of community service, that would be a different story.

Let's put it this way: why should "stealing" a 99c song be any different than
shoplifting a 99c candy bar?

~~~
slantyyz
You can't own a song, but you can own a candy bar.

As much as the ads say "own the cd now" or "own the blu ray now" you own
nothing. You are just paying for a license and some otherwise useless physical
media.

Having said that, I still don't get why paying 99 cents for a song is so
egregious if you've got a job.

~~~
lukifer
Yeah, the analogy to physical goods obviously doesn't hold; I just think it's
funny that the same people who compare copyright violation to theft also tend
to advocate suing for incredibly large amounts, when stealing the same
physical item has a drastically smaller punishment.

Interestingly enough, I suspect that if Big Media hadn't sought such absurdly
punitive damages in the early days, (destroying what little credibility and
moral high ground they had), most average people would have sided with them
and aided in social enforcement. Something like, say, the cost of the
infringing material plus a $100 fine would go a lot further to aid their cause
than $100k lawsuits.

