Slashdot Mirror
Gene Simmons Blames College Kids For Music Industry Woes
drcagn writes "Gene Simmons has blasted 'college' kids and claims that they have destroyed the music industry, with the labels also to blame for not properly suing them out of existence when they had the chance. When asked about Radiohead and Trent Reznor's recent support of a different direction in music distribution, he says "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?" When asked about music being free and making money off of merchandise, he says, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?" even though earlier in the interview he brags that he believes that KISS's merchandise is more profitable than Elvis's or the Beatles.'"
"If you're not a Liberal when you're 18 you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain." --Winston Churchill (at least according to the first Google hit I found).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Because Gene Simmons certainly is.
Someone who was always about the merch and not the music would complain. Unless of course he's missing his weekly coke-money that came in from his risiduals which have all but dried up. Or perhaps the band just sucked and the kids have moved on 30 plus years later. I love the fact that industry that made most of it's money on the backs of the youth market has all but watched that market not only walk away but become outright hostile when sued (imagine that).
In other news of the worthy for Gene and his ilk - water is wet amazingly enough.
This is not the first stupid thing Mr. Simmons has said or done.
In a later Fresh Air interview, satirist Al Franken related to Terry Gross his own encounter with Gene Simmons. According to Franken, he was awaiting a racquetball partner at a club when Simmons, whom Franken had not recognized, challenged him to a match, stating "I'll kick your ass" only to suffer an embarrassing loss to Franken. Simmons responds by calling for another match and when Franken indicates that since his racquetball partner has arrived, he can't play Simmons again, Simmons responds by making loud "bock, bock, bock" chicken sounds. Franken then offers to play Simmons with $500 at stake, at which Simmons walks away.[3][4]Franken tells Terry not to blame herself for her experience with Simmons, and that Simmons behavior at the racquetball made him "the most awful person I've ever met."
I can see how record studio artists might shit a brick at the prospect of giving away music etc. but definitely not live bands.
It's clear what Gene Simmons' priorities are.
;)
Oh, besides being a greedy bastard.
Disclaimer: I do not read EW -- I just remembered that quote from a guitar magazine awhile back
The headline says it all.
"Music *industry* woes".
Music, itself -- the part that involves people getting up on stage and singing/playing/whatever, and maybe selling recordings if they're good enough -- is doing just fine.
People still write songs and play them, and will keep on doing so independent of the success or failure of any particular method by which others profit off of them.
Seriously. There is a story about this on Slashdot at least every other day with no actual new legal/economic/industry developments, resulting in the exact same comments and arguments rehashed. Yes, I know I can just ignore it. Yes, I must be new here. But what's wrong with some constructive criticism of Slashdot?
FWIW I think the only way we'll see the stories disappear is if we stop reading and commenting on them (which means /. loses ad revenue and will stop posting them).
I would have enjoyed a few KISS songs on how The Man is being let down by "college kids". "Obey the law or be sued" would make for a catchy refrain.
What do you expect from a guy who got rich decades ago off an antiquated system? He's one of the few winners from the traditional music industry structure. It'd be nice if he had the perspective to realize that music is voluntary purchase, and without the good graces of college kids he would have nothing, but he's a musician, not an economist.
Everyone in the old guard says that digital distribution won't work. They watch CD sales slip away and think it's because of piracy, when it's actually the old business model falling apart. Sue college kids...Yeah, that'll get sales up. People are done buying 13 tracks of crap for the one song they like. The future is a la carte. Guys like Gene Simmons can either sink or swim, though granted I doubt he could sell his music to anyone under 40 anyway.
-R
"I don't usually do things like this to kids your age, but when I saw you coming out of college that day, I knew, I knew, I've got to have you, I've got to have you"
Like this shithead ever created any art for the sake of being creative. What ruins the industry is simple minded musicians mass producing garbage for the masses. what a fucktard!
The majority of posts seem to focus on the fact that Kiss make loads of money from merchandising and loads of money from touring and say "so Simmons is wrong". Look, the guy is the exception to the rule. Most musicians are bland and uninteresting and all the better for it. Kiss, like many of their contemporaries, made themselves into entertainers, not just musicians. Many rappers and high-camp pop acts follow this model, with extravagant stage "experiences", but it just wouldnt work for, say, Damien Rice.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
This is they guy who will sue your ass off if you try and make a documentary about Kiss cover bands.
Luckily I don't know enough Kiss to fit 'sue' into a song title. Slow news night, I guess.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
If listening to "Your Body is A Wonderland," on repeat is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Although when you actually look at the pitiful amount of money the music industry actually pulls in, I wouldn't be surprised if it was funded predominately by college kids.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Hey I wanna rock n roll all night & party every day too pal, but in order for me to afford it I have to cut back on some expenses.
I think deciding to download songs my dad already payed for half a dozen times because some drunk chick sat on his record is a good place to start !
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
the greedier they get.
I don't know much about Kiss, but I imagine he's getting to that age where he wants to tour less (and thus make less merchandise sales) and thus would like to live off royalties.
And I think he's generally right that pirates need to be taken to court and prosecuted. This is a far better alternative than DRM, which hurts legal users too. Prosecute the criminals. I don't think that the slashdot audience can be self-consistent if it's both opposed to DRM and to prosecuting criminals.
--
Get started with microcontrollers today!
....he said, as he headed toward the wardrobe trailer, where he will spend the next 8 hours working on his hair and makeup.
FAQs are evil.
Gene Fucking Simmons has made enough off KISS merchandise alone to more than comfortably support a small town, so he's got no room to beef.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Gene Simmons also advocates public executions for drugs. If it weren't for drugs how could half his fans endure his music?
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. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on. Hmmm...not certain if I follow his logic.
Seeing as how my first thought on reading the summary was 'who is gene simmons', I think its fairly safe to say the final score is:
College Kids 1, Retarded Old Drag Queen 0.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
...KISS and my lower spine now. Strange.
-A
Doh! Must review subject too. Have taken to many drugs trying to enjoy Gene's music.
So he wants to base his business model around suing college kids for downloading songs? Maybe if the recording industry focused more on innovation than lawsuits they wouldn't be in this mess.Everyone and their mother told them that the cd was a dead end, and yet they dragged their feet. Now, they can't catch up.
Either shut up or die? I hope that he will shut up when he dies. Would be a bit eerie if he didn't.
...are tomorrow's conservatives.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Or "Getoffmylawn".
why is it morally wrong?
copyright law was intended to encourage artists to create new work by granting them a temporary monopoly on their work.
with mass-reproducible art forms - music, photography, print, film, industries were created which took copyright away from the content creators
once the copyrights have been acquired, the industry big-wigs have repeatedly bribed government officials and law makers into extending copyright protection to ridicules terms so they cab squeeze every penny out of each copyright they own, while the creator makes next to nothing from their work.
so, is it morally right for large corporations to bend laws and buy-out politicians to allow their business model to work?
is it right for laws to protect corporations over the rights of private citizens?
as a private citizen, I believe the current situation is unjust, and I believe that a moral person has a moral obligation to fight unjust laws. But I also come from a country where blank media is taxed, to compensate the artists. so I steal as much content as I can. I've got to get my money's worth.
I am a content creator myself, and I have been inhibited by these oppressive copyright laws.
-I only code in BASIC.-
As for myself: Because I disagree with the idea that someone who has created some content has the exclusive right to control distribution of that content. In short, I believe copyright as it works today does not benefit society, and should be radically changed. I believe there is no such thing as "intellectual property", because anything anyone will ever create ultimately builds on stuff that person has picked up from the environment and people around him/her. This does not mean there is nothing called originality, individual creativity and skill certainly counts for something. However, copyright removes, for an unjustifiably long timespan, content is withheld from the public domain where it would otherwise be used as a foundation for new and better content.
Of course, there are certain pieces of content that cost huge sums of money to create and where the creator will likely not go through the trouble unless he/she has some hope of return on investment. Certain types of software certainly fall into this category. Thus some sort of compromise is in order: I would propose that current copyright law is reduced to 5 years and that copying for noncommercial purposes is legalized. This would make selling pirated software, music etc illegal but permit filesharing.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
I once had a small business (really more of a hobby than a major enterprise -- something to bring in some extra wampum) in which I sold unusual esoteric merchandise to a small group of fanatics (I think at most I had a few hundred folks on my mailing list). Sales were down and the economy was bad, so one month I did a "name you own price" special -- you tell me what you want and what you think is a fair price and we have a deal. And I had a higher net profit in that month than any other that year. Apropos of nothing, perhaps, as I know every business and industry is different, but the basic point is that often it is the unconventional business model that turns out to be the most successful. The more set you are in your ways, the more you stand to lose as the world passes you by.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I was just thinking how shitty, artless bands like Kiss are probably to blame for music industry woes.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
There's something very basic in humans that less us understand the concept of "mine" and "yours", and apply it to physical objects. But what about ideas? Intellectual property is much more difficult for most people to wrap their minds around. For example, you don't understand it either. "Downloading stuff that you didn't pay for" is not stealing. Stealing is a criminal act where you deprive someone of the use or enjoyment of property. Making a copy of a work is not criminal, nor does it deprive the copyright owner of anything. It can be against the wishes of the copyright owner, and the copyright owner can assert that you inflicted damages, but it is not stealing, just as hijacking an aircraft is not committing insurance fraud.
So, we've got property rights that are agreed upon by a society, or so we think, and some of those, few people really seem to understand, and yet affect everybody. Worse, these are relative young "rights". Copyrights came in with mass printing and were built to combat mass printing. With the cost of duplication practically nil, and the means of communication readily available, Copyright law, as it is now, is just impractical: it's designed for mass infringement cases, not as a means of generating revenue.
On the one hand, human behavior in these matters has not changed since the beginning of written communication: people copy what interests them, and don't immediately grasp the notion of paying for an instantion of an idea (they do, however, immediately grasp the importance of paying someone to produce ideas). On the other hand, we have a handful of companies with a business model based on the high cost of mass production and distribution confronted with a change to an environment of cheap distribution and individualized production. And there's no worse citizen than a fading elite. The music industry in particular made this worse by focusing on saturating the market with a few insipid "hits", and overexposing the listeners: to the average person, that song that they're hearing several times a day isn't worth anything in itself.
So to answer your question: nobody's saying downloading music without paying for it is ok. I say that, yes, downloading music without paying for is ok, when the copyright holders make it available for free.
It is wrong, and illegal, but it isn't stealing.
Stealing and copyright infringement are covered by different laws and they have different effects on the victims of the crimes and society in general, they are not the same thing.
That doesn't make copyright infringement right. However, there needs to be some flexibility here.
For example, I generally download an album before I buy it. If I like what I hear I go out and buy the CD, if not, I delete what I downloaded. If I can't hear something before buying it I probably won't buy it because I've bought too many CDs I thought were going to be good and turned out to be complete crap. And what's wrong with this? Consider it promotion for the bands - if their music is good then it makes them more money because I'm more likely to spend my money on CDs I _know_ are good rather than taking a gamble.
Can anybody fill me in as to why downloading music without paying for it is ok?
It isn't. But can you fill me in as to why the following behaviour is ok:
At the moment, the quality of the official product is frequently substandard compared to the blackmarket product. People generally like paying and staying within the law, but when it starts to become impossible to use the legally purchased product, is it any surprise that people stop buying it?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
First off, some people need to RTFA, he is NOT talking about himself, but about new bands who dream of success who he claims will not be able to do it (or at least not the way he defines success, getting really rich of your image).
So?
Times change. Once you had far more theathers and far more places where plays could be held. Then the movie theather arrived and put countless performers out of business. Were once a musician was playing in bar now there is a sound installation. Where once there was an entertainer, now there is a big screen TV.
Movie theathers too took a hit with the arrival of television. Live tv broadcasts took a hit when VCR's arrived and even more with DVR.
Coal mines are gone in holland, because we discovered a gas field and bam, lots of people unemployed. Daf cars (trucks still exists) is gone and again, people out of a job because less and less people are needed to make cars and there are countries that can do it cheaper.
IT is being outsourced as are call center jobs.
The next generations job prospects are going to be different then today's.
In a way, he says that himself, no band has managed to overtake KISS in merchandising. HE himself killed the dream off new bands in becoming the next kiss because he refuses to step aside. Shame on him.
Lets say that not a single musician can make money anymore. Unlikely but lets assume it for a second, not a single person can make a single penny creating music. So?
Where is it written that you should be able too? I am by training a baker, I am fairly good at it, (but not exceptionally so) and I left the business because it is a dead end. People buy their bakery goods from the factory and opening a new bakery shop is far to expensive and legally impossible. Zoning restrictions, a bakery works at night and produces noise and smells while by its nature it has to be in a residential area. That don't mix no more. The hygience laws have become so strict that it costs a fortune to fit out a new building and the costs (and shortage) of skilled labourers, plus the restrictions of what they are allowed to do means you need a massive amount of very expensive equipment, which because the demand for small scale equipment has plummeted is increasingly expensive.
In short, society has killed the small baker shop. Of the people in my entire school only a handfull are still in the trade, a most of them because they inheritied the business from their parents.
Do I see Gene Simmons give a shit about that? No. Why then should I give a shit if some other person has to give up his dream of being a paid artist and find another way of making a living.
Lots of people try to make an argument that music sharing doesn't hurt the industry or that artist can compensate or that there are different methods of selling music.
I like to take it one step further, why should society give a shit wether music creators can make money? Do we really want to make rigid laws for all people just so a few can make a living the job they want? I want to bake bread. Should YOU be forced to go to a seperate store in your area for your bread rather then go to the supermarket? Should for instance the dutch be forced to serve pie again on their birthday from the local bakery rather then "vlaai" (a kind of pie coming originally from a dutch province that comes from a chain of stores that get supplied by a factory).
If you say no to that, then you should say no to everything the RIAA wants as well. Society should not have to bend over backwards just some people can make music for a living. Get a job.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
As an intellectual exercise, let's stick to Gene's flawed analogy. Gold has a price because there's this idea that people "agree" that it should have a certain price. Now let's examine Radiohead's experiment. They're saying "you name a price, and we'll charge you that much". And so on an individual basis, each fan is agreeing with Radiohead that the price of the new album should be X dollars. Seems to me that Radiohead's model is exactly what he's arguing for. So tell me, what's wrong with giving away music?
Regardless, somebody needs to let Mr. Simmons know that he's living in a brave new world, and unless he has a burning desire to move in with the dodos, he needs to realize that the old models might not work anymore. That, or maybe he's trying really hard for the arrogant, self-righteous bastard image.
It's the same argument you hear from the hardest of the hardcore FOSS guys - that ALL products that can be reproduced electronically - music, code, games, books, presumably movies - should be available for free, and that the artists should support themselves either by asking for handouts or by selling something marginally related to their art.
I'd argue that rock stars don't WANT to shill t-shirts, or they'd be in a t-shirt company. And honestly, if you're looking for LESS crappy pop music, do you really want to encourage them to base their economics on having faces that look good on lunch boxes?
Same for programmers, of course. While the line is blurred in many cases, at heart I'd say many coders don't WANT to work as "support" for their own product. I mean, isn't that the basic coder stereotype, impatience with people who don't understand technology?
The paradigm breaks down even more for novelists. A novelist's entire skill set revolves around writing stuff, and anything he writes is gonna take ten seconds to copy and upload, so without "intellectual property" of SOME sort he's basically SOL.
FORTUNATELY, (and here's where I hopefully mitigate the -1 Troll points I foresee for this post), merchandising ISN'T the only way musicians can make money aside from CD profits. They also have that little niche called "live performances," which sustained them for a good 99.9% of human history.
It's that college kids don't have money anyway. They can't afford to buy your music either one way or the other. The best way to make money off these kids is to leave them alone... because they may become fans. Once these kids graduate, they'll have the money to support the artists they love.
It's all OK though, because the college kids will graduate and they'll enter the upper tiers of the socioeconomic ladder. The kids have all grown up hating and fearing you, so good luck extracting dollars from their soon-to-be-lined pockets. You've dug your own ditch, and now get ready to lie in it.
Damien Rice has that... what do you call it.... oh yeah, talent.
Gene Simmons is going to blast college kids for engaging in sex before marriage.
;-)
Something like: "Everyone knows stable marriages are the bedrock of civilized society, and stable marriages cannot be created except through abstinence before marriage! College kids these days are out of the f****** minds!!".
This being said, of course, after performing the following song in full KISS regalia...
Ah well, getting old and cranky will happen to us all, as they say.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I found a copy of Simmons' biography in a second hand shop and while it's an interesting read, he's a pretty dull guy. No vices apart from womanising, and it's fairly obvious that he saw music as a way of avoiding the day job, which he's managed to do for 35 years. It comes as no surprise that he mistrusts the way that the music business is going, and can't see the difference between file sharing and paid-for downloading. He is the epitome of senior music industry management - late 50s, tour jacket wearing, stuck in that notion of selling 'product'. Not being able to buy Kiss online won't trouble his income much, and it probably doesn't occur to him that more of his income these days comes from touring, merchandise and just being Gene Simmons. I can imagine that he was a slow adopter of the CD format too, and probably made sure that he got a good deal out of them before Kiss got digitised for the first time.
they got a heck of a lot more per album for themselves doing it that way than you get with your rip-off recording contract...
/me thinks he's just jealous he didn't come up with the idea himself... cos if he tries it now, he'll just look like a me-too wannabee...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
As has been amply explained by others, copyright laws are a (relatively) modern contrivance intended to enable a minory of talented artists to generate sufficient revenue from their arts that they need not 'keep the day job', because as a society we (presumably) feel that their arts enrich society as a whole and we would not benefit from them so readily if they had to hold down another job. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around these artists, such that the industry is far richer and more powerful than most of the artists themselves, and they are desparately trying to protect their revenue stream. One of their strategies is to try to redefine copyright infringement as 'theft' which they have been largely successful in doing, even though it's utter nonsense.
The notion of 'intellectual property' has also been invented in order to confuse the issue. Sadly this is still all about companies trying to extract the maximum revenue from an idea or invention - often something that the company themselves neither thought of nor developed. There is a place for some sort of 'ownership of ideas' so that plagiarism is avoided, but this unfortunately has little to do with copyright.
for my low income.
I'm sure I can find some correlation between the record industry, and me not earning enough money with my work. And I don't mean because I buy CDs, because I don't.
Cry me a river, Gene Simmons.
You do realize that these college kids are the core target for your publisher, although I doubt if an aging 'rockband' is in their interests, especially after your comments?
And if they were sued out of existence, you are biting off the hand that could feed you.
"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."
Right, and directly after that the music industry would really come to a complete standstill, because no one has money to pay for records, which would actually increase piracy, or decrease the will to even listen to music, if the industry was that vindictive and evil.
If you piss off enough of your paying customers, you will find that they will push back, and you will not like it if that happens.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
I just downloaded a copy of your comment without paying for it! I'm a thief!
they were going extinct...I haven't bought a dinosaur egg for ages. In fact I've noticed that all the remaining ones I have are so old that have started to smell...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Well if you start suing whoever is listening to your music then pretty much you would be left all alone to listen to it.
Music and art theft was and is a problem.
Radiohead has matured and has shown the way. Apple is showing the path.
Bands like KISS are still retarted and will always be. These guys want kids to pay $29.99 for a CD which contain 20 songs out of which 2 are good and rest are piss poor.
Now that kids have the power to resist such payments, and instead pay only 99 cents for each track they like and refuse to pay 29.99 for crap, KISS hates them.
KISS: Good riddance.
The world would be a better place if a band like you disappears.
Oh, and stop comparing yourself to Gold. Gold is valuable for 5000 years and still retains its lustre and value any day in any country.
Your songs are worth the crap that you are tomorrow.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
"with mass-reproducible art forms - music, photography, print, film, industries were created which took copyright away from the content creators"
Or to look at it another way, with mass-producible art forms, e.g. CD audio recordings it allowed musicians to create high quality products using their own resources for which they could retain copyright and sell directly to their public, i.e. via the web or at gigs. These people would invest considerable amounts of their own time and money in this creative endevour and it is a reasonable idea that they should be able to control its reproduction to gain financially.
The fact that it's so easy to replicate/steal, makes you wonder should it really cost that much?
If there was a machine that can replicate a 500,000 dollar car for 100 dollars....wouldn't you be asking yourself....should I really pay 499,900 dollars just for design?...should cars cost so much?
I first thought, "Are kids sweating to pirated oldies"? The horror!
Monstar L
Gene is just promoting himself. He's is the brand. He's outspoken in order to create headlines to push his latest ventures that's all. The man is a savvy marketer.
Did he write this or speak this? Are the capital letters from a citation that's accurate (Bartlett's Familiar Quotations?)
In any case the quote has always annoyed me... but not as much as the conservatives who quote it (with a "when you're older and wiser, you'll come around" attitude about them). As I'm getting older I'm paying more attention to politics and getting more involved, and probably even more liberal than I was at 18.
I've also taken it to mean that when you're 40, you have money and property you want to be greedy about and protect, and so don't care as much about the welfare of your fellow man. Likewise I'm better off than at 18, and it sure doesn't deter me from wanting to make the world better overall.
"I said Hey! You! Get off of my lawn" damn kids. . .
James A. Watson - Sluggy Freelance Microcircuit Design Engineer
"Stealing" is depriving someone of property, not gaining something for free. Downloading is copyright infringement, not stealing, as no-one is losing anything. The only way you can say someone's losing something is saying that maybe each and every person who downloads the music will no longer buy the album in a store - but if they're not going to buy it anyway, no-one's losing out. The music industry is different from nearly every other industry out there, as it exists only to further itself, and not that which it claims to promote - the artists. Artists get hardly anything from record sales, due to the labels using out-dated payment schemes based on low-yield vinyl production, which means artists get most of their income from live performances and merchandise. If you take the record labels out of the picture, the bands get just as much money as they did before, the bands get even more exposure (as everyone's downloading their music, thinking "wow this is great!" and going to their shows, netting the artists a cool $20 or more (compared to the cents an album sale gets), or the people listening don't like their music, and instead spend that $20 on a band they do like. You end up with artists getting paid a decent amount for their work, and music fans finding music they absolutely love, and getting to see these bands/artists live for the money they save on buying overpriced albums that only serve to fund the cartels controlling the sale of this promotional material (as that's what albums are - advertising for live gigs).
Well, from a technical perspective, it's not stealing because it's literally not stealing. I steal your car? You don't have it anymore. I "steal" (or rather, infringe on your copyright) your music...well, you've still got it, hey?
Infringing copyright is NOT okay, and I don't think anyone can rationalise this point of view (but hey, I could be wrong). It's just that the law's idea of what copyright infringement is, and what Slashdot's idea of it are completely different.
Stealing = Criminal court.
Copyright infringement (don't call it piracy, that's a different crime...) = Civil court.
There's a difference.
the US Dollar is in the toilet, gasoline/diesel/fuel is more expensive than i ever seen it before in my life which drives the cost of groceries and everything else that has to be hauled by freight-train & truck up too. i would think anyone that works for a living has more important things to spend money on than music & video, you cant eat CD/DVD roms for breakfast, lunch & dinner...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Gene Simmons is the product of the 80s hair band era where record companies were making money hand over fist. That era is completely gone, but his brain still functions with that time period in mind. In short, he's obsolete.
Most of the comments on /. are suggesting that the future is giving away your music/book etc. and making money off merchandise etc.
But I suspect, the much better form of "selling" your art would be (and probably will be) just looking for sponsors or patrons. It seems the artist sells her/his soul if he seeks sponsors, but we live in a pluralistic society with many ideologies, philosophies and the corresponding organizations/political parties/churches etc. An artist may choose from a large supply of supporters. And this system has worked for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Even when only a few monarchs and one church were the only supporters of arts, many great artifacts were born (which doesn't mean I wish those times for today's artists when 99 % of your art had to depict/sing biblical stories or the greatness of XY king).
...so listen to your elders when they tell you college-age nihilists about right 'n wrong.
All by dressing as a girl.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
God gave rock 'n' roll to everyone... except for college students, who are crooks.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Be good consumers and spend your money like previous generations used to.
Kids these days spend their money on MMORPGs or whatever, instead of LPs and CDs.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
First the music industry, in their never ending quest for more money and larger profits, kills good music by commercializing it to death. When confronted with the result, they subsequently blame their customers, bribe politicians and try to make a quick buck by suing a.o. mothers and college kids. All in the name of music and the artist, who they've previously ripped off. Well, Gene Simmons' second solo album says it all... Asshole (2004).
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ah, but when should you have started? Suing every person who made a cassette copy of the LP for their car? Those kids in the early Eighties who made cassette copies for their friends? Those who would tape radio shows, or even made their own mix tapes?
No, the industry is in a tizzy because it's become so easy to make a copy that they have trouble justifying their existence. Making and distributing copies is no longer as expensive or risk-filled as it was when copyrights were first implemented. Slowly, it has eroded from needing expensive equipment to having the tools to make "good enough" copies for close friends to everyone having the ability to globally distribute, yet the idea behind copyright has not kept pace.
It's best to remember that copyright originated as a way for publishers to ensure that the artist's commission could be recouped. They paid a fee to the writer or artist and swallowed the cost of printing and distribution. Copyright meant a competing print shop couldn't just make their own copies until a set time, when the cost of printing could reasonable be considered amortised. Changing it into a sort of welfare for publishers has been a disaster.
I never understood this idea, so popular on slashdot, that downloading stuff that you didn't pay for is somehow not stealing.
Because stealing requires that the "victim" incur an actual loss, not merely a theoretical one.
Can anybody fill me in as to why downloading music without paying for it is ok?
That's a separate issue. It's not "OK", but it's not stealing either. To illustrate the point that I'm making, take the following example. If someone seduces and has sex with someone else's spouse, they have done something that I think most of us would consider wrong but was it rape?
The recording industry has tried to pretend that copyright infringement is the same as someone putting a gun to your head and taking your wallet. It's not.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You torrent everything we've got
You keep downloading and your disk gets hot
You drive us wild, we'll go sue crazy
We'll twist the facts till they go in a spin
The lawsuits just begun, we'll get you in
You drive us wild, we'll go sue crazy
You keep on shoutin', you keep on shoutin'
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
We keep on saying you'll be fined in a while
Smoking crack and opening shops just ain't my style
You drive us wild, we'll go sue crazy
Our lawyers demand everything you've got
Baby, baby thats quite a lot
And you drive us wild, we'll go sue crazy
You keep on shoutin', you keep on shoutin'
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
I wanna obey the law all night, and not get sued every day
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/01/22/8397980/index.htm
Country Music is still profitable...
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
kiss is one of the reason music sucks today and was built and enforced the idea of a band as a marketing scheme more than music.
kiss sold out to mr $$ from day one.
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
"At the moment, the quality of the official product is frequently substandard compared to the blackmarket product." This is the most important thing that the industry fat cats don't want to recognize. They have to understand that, whether they like it or not, they are competing with free mp3 downloads. They need to make it just as convenient, if not more so, to download and listen to the music legally if they ever want to take market share back from "freeloading college kids."
This just proves what everybody has always known about KiSS - they are all about the money, period. That might be OK if they were talented too, but unfortunately in Gene Simmons case this is not so clearly true. If he can't figure out how to make money in the new reality that is digital content, he should retire and go fishing. Pointing the finger at American kids who share music (just like I did when I was a kid recording albums to tape to share with my friends) and ignoring the fact that the bulk of the rest of world (Asia, etc.) don't give a fig about his intellectual property rights at all is just stupid. I, for one, will not cry when the blood sucking record companies meet their well deserved inglorious end, and I hope it comes soon. I want to buy music directly from the artist, online - and I DONT need to go to a 50,000 seat stadium to watch Gene Simmons dance around in makeup from so far away I need binoculars to tell he's almost 60 years old.
One more time...
He isn't saying that it isn't criminal illegal or unethical, but it isn't stealing! Theft is a specific sort of crime. Now please, please stop calling it "stealing"!
Who is the KISS they mention in the article?
America, Home of the Brave.
Gene Simmons is just bitter they he doesn't have as much cultural impact for "college kids" as Gene Frenkle.
Um: 'college' kids? Like children who, somehow, are connected with 'college'? You're not allowed to call people at college kids as they are adults. If not, then: Why won't you think of the children, Gene?
In fact, today's children are tomorrow's college kids! You could sue the children out of existence now, while they're weak and vulnerable! That'll save you're industry! What with all the music you're making right now.
Oh, wait. I just remembered. You're the guy who's famous for having a long tongue, right? It wasn't the music at all was it, tonguey?
I see where Gene says that downloading should have been stopped early on. It makes no difference, it would have eventually happened anyway.
Anyone remember DAT cassettes? The record industry legislated them out of existance with a special tax. So what? Recordable CD's eventually came along and would have made DAT's obsolete anyway.
I think the argument as to why thats a bad thing goes something like this:
I'm tired of self respect
I can't afford a car
I wanna be a tool
Don't need no soul
Wanna make big money
Playing rock and roll
I'll make my music boring
I'll play my music slow
I ain't no artist, I'm a businessman
No ideas of my own
I won't offend
Or rock the boat
Just sex and drugs
And rock and roll
You'll pay ten bucks to see me
On a fifteen foot high stage
Fatass bouncers kick the shit
Out of kids who try to dance
If my friends say
I've lost my guts
I'll laugh and say
That's rock and roll
But There's just one problem.....
Is my cock big enough
Is my brain small enough
For you to make me a star
Give me a toot
And I'll sell you my soul
Pull my strings and I'll go far
And when I'm rich
And meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some fool
And shoot some dope
Is my cock big enough
Is my brain small enough
For you to make me a star
It _is_ morally OK. Selling copies of a disk is wrong, because you're making money off someone else's work. Making a copy is sharing. Sharing is friendly and generous.
Should I be sued if I make a copy of a cd for a friend who couldn't afford to buy it anyway? Should I be sued only if he could afford it? Why don't we sue everyone who's ever taped a tv show?
If I want a friend to listen to this great song I discovered, I invite him home to listen to it. If he's currently living abroad, should I refrain from sending it by e-mail because it suddenly becomes evil?
I think what you fail to understand is that the music industry is not in the business of selling music, it is in the business of selling a media container, a physical object on which the music is stored. The artists let them sell these containers in exchange for a share of the profit.
For a long time capturing the music on a physical object was an expensive process, as was duplicating said object, wich justified the relatively high price of records. Modern technology makes recording and duplicating cheap and easy, so these people (music industry) simply have nothing to sell anymore.
As for the artists, they will be just fine. There's plenty of ways to make money off your music. You can play live shows, you can offer it for download with ads on the page, you can sell merchandise, you can sell a container that's desirable and expensive/hard to duplicate (a cd in a nice looking digipack, or with a poster or whatever)... And yes, there was music and professional musicians before the invention of the gramophone.
It's apocryphal, apparently. There are various other suggestions for the origin of the quote.
Say funeral arrangements. People do indeed provide that service, and we pay them for it. Now say that a medical breakthrough happens and dying becomes a thing of the past. No more dead, no more need for burials. Should YOU then be legally forced to die, just so funeral directors can continue making a living supplying that service?
What I am saying is that if musicians can't make a living making music, they should stop doing that. Demand and supply, this does NOT mean, as you seem to think, that if you supply that you are entitled to a demand.
Times change. Monks were once able to support their monestary by handcopying books. With the invention of the printing press, that job vanished. Should society be forced to stand still just so a handfull can enjoy the living they once did.
Get this straight, I am not saying music should be free. I am saying that if people don't want to pay for your music, don't make it.
Perhaps I spend too much time around performance artists. This is a group of people that feel they deserve tax money for their art. They need the tax money because nobody is willing to pay for it.
I am going to introduce a law, and you must follow it, when ever you come across a street performer you MUST donate 10 dollars. You saw it, you gonna pay for it.
Offcourse that is silly, as silly as people thinking they have a right to make a living in any job they feel like. I would LOVE to make a living as a gigolo for beautifull young ladies. Ain't going to happen and if the world isn't willing to bend over backwards for my needs then I sure as hell am not going to give a shit about some kid who wants to become rich making music in world that doesn't want to pay for music. Find another job, do it for free. I had to do that, I am forced to just do my amazing love making as a hobby with no more compensation that a "job well done".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Actually according to his biography many people have fucked him. Apparently that didn't help this case.
(This sig intentionally left blank)
Don't get me wrong, I know who these guys are. I was given their set of four solo albums, given as they were sold in record store discount bins with the selling point "they might be valuable one day". To give you some idea, Def Leopard Pyromania was something ubiquitous; almost everyone had a copy of that tape somewhere. These solo albums were more often than not returned. I still have them, but it's not like anyone wants them. I have no idea what they sound like, not like I haven't heard anything by them, they are just bland with the exception of their makeup and marketing. They sort of symbolize what I dislike about the direction music went toward the late 70s early 80s, all hair and no substance.
Making the claim "it's all about the music" is rather ludicrous coming from these guys as I've never seen any evidence they actually love music. But as far as all glam no rock bands go, they do get some respect for making a buck all these years, though IMHO they hung around just long enough to be RETRO.
But you can rather tell who's "all about the music" and "who's all about the marketing" by seeing if they have their vids on YouTube or not. Billy Joel is a good example. Same age as Gene Simmons but has most of his music vids on YT. KISS not at all. I would rather see Joel in concert than KISS any day of the week even if they did a super intense pyrotechnic show.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Let's tone down Gene Simmon's argument...
1) Many artists these days are not the quality that one would expect. THOUGH, and this is a big THOUGH... There were plenty of garbage artists in the 80's, and 70's. You just don't hear about them now. Case in point Twisted Sister... I never did get that. Twisted Sister is an example of a band that was marketed with no talent.
2) People don't buy music because they can rip it off somebody for cheaper. The reality is that if you can get for free you will not pay for it. And this is the case in college or university. I remember people used to photocopy entire text books because they were too cheap to buy the text book. Thus I can very easily see students not paying for music.
Combine this with a general attitude of "we don't want to pay for anything" and you get a serious revenue problem.
I actually don't believe the argument that if you have quality you will buy it. Take the Radio Head example. It's not a business model, point blank! Gene Simmons was a bit harsh in his metaphor. But the problem is that I doubt it covers enough to make a living. There was an author who gave away his book "in the spirit" of community. Well his latest book is not completely available anymore in free format. Why? Easy because people were not buying his book and his sales were hurting. And this is the irony. Somebody tries to do a good thing, and what happens? He gets kicked in the teeth.
So in the end Gene Simmons is correct! Content costs....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
... be buggered if I ever buy any more. Ever. What a douche.
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Lately I've been forced to listen to the radio at a lot. Between NPR, user-supported radio, and the standard fare, I have come to the conclusion that the downfall of the music industry can be blamed on one beast - radio. Why is that you ask?
Think about it. You listen to FM radio all day and what do you hear? The same 10 songs (depending upon genre and station) over and over. So anyone wanting to hear new music (or even older music they have never heard) is out of luck. So what happens is people like me who gave up on the radio years ago quit buying music. We just listen to the same old stuff over and over again. We really have little idea that there might be something new and wonderful out there because the radio stations won't let us here it.
Oh sure there might be stations in larger cities, or on XM radio...but barring that you are sequestered to the same ol' mix of the same ol' songs day in and day out.
Oh and it doesn't help that there is hardly anything new and wonderful out there these days. The radio waves are filled with talentless hacks and CEO-created boy and girl bands, increasingly angry and ego-maniacal rap, depressing country...you get the idea.
So maybe the recording industry should stop trying to lay blame on music pirates because they are typically only pirating old music because it's the only thing worth a damn anymore. Instead they should point the finger of blame back at themselves. Why?
1) They bleed the musicians of all their profit.
2) They only produce what they think are "sure things" which are, ultimately not. In that process they side step possible, actual talent!
3) They create a situation where radio stations can only play what the music industry considers a "sure thing" thus filling the air waves with the same ol', played out music that we were tired of hearing a decade ago.
Maybe the whole idea behind the advent of radio stations should come back to haunt us - to play good music. To play music worthy of buying. But that's not going to happen because there is no profit in that.
And that's what it's all about you hokey pokey people.
Blah!
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
I couldn't care less about the whole industry. Fact is I have tried to be good. I haven't made illegal copies. I haven't let people copy from me. What do I get in return? A tarrif added to every tape, cd or dvd I buy to pay for music other people "steal". Yes, even if I am burning 100% original content made by me. Even if I use it as coaster. So my attitude is finally changing. Fact is if the whole distibution mechanism was needed then they *might* have a moral high (or at least middle) ground. It isn't though. They just need it to maintain control. So if I'm paying for music every time I burn a program to a DVD, then I no longer have to buy it direct.
This may not be the case in your country, but in the netherlands the music industry is a legalised and protected cartel. Almost every store (99.9%) offers the same prices. That's competition? On this end I'm looking up a dark hole which produces....well this is a family thread, so I won't elaborate.
Let's remember a little history - I'm a geezer geek, so I'll help. AFAIR, Kiss hit the stage in makeup to cover up their day jobs - and it was popular knowledge that one of them was an accountant and they were all white-collar, up and comer types.
Cheech and Chong, in their Alice Bowie schtick, referred to them lyrically as, "And I only know three chords!!" (Or was that Bachman, Turner, Overweight? Another distinction without a difference.)
I knew of NO ONE at the college I attended in the early '70s ever owning, or even tolerating listening to, Kiss.
One of the Marsalis brothers put it succinctly - it's a thing called rhythm. Young or old, college or not, there's a whole planet full of people that get that simple thing.
Then, there's the rest of the polyester-wearing, mass-media slurping ugly crowd, served by "rock" bands like Kiss (apologies if reading rock and Kiss in the same sentence makes you as sick to read it as it did me to write it). Kiss "music" (translation: drek) seems targeted to only increase the population of the slurping Eloi - it's just part of the 8-track in the brain, endless loop program that most idiots seem to have running around in their heads. I'm sure there's an industry for that, but in the day, we referred to it as Madison Avenue, not the music industry.
Eugene's only real problem (may we call him Eugene?) is that he's going to be the first to whine when his brane-programming revenue is threatened.
Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not.
Hope this clarifies things from a certain point of view.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
If my memory holds, this is called the discussion about a Line Item Veto.
Presidents and Music Buyers want it, Congress and Record OldGuard don't so they can jam stuff you don't want into packages with stuff you do want.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I suppose one way of looking at his rant is taking the usual abbreviation of kiss.. keep it simple stupid - atleast with his rant he's simplified it...
(Or is it more for their music, 3 chords is about their limit... )
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
You know I have to laugh to myself while reading all these posts. People here cutting up Gene for what he's said. Yet for the most part its true. Now I have been known to download the odd mp3 or so, but when you look at it there is a big problem out there. For instance, you would never go into a store and just take your favorite bands memorabilia without paying for it and not expect to be jumped by the security guard standing at the door - juiced up on steroids. Gene is also right in suggesting that you would never open a corner store and simply have people pay what they think is fair or can afford and expect to make a living that way. I mean this is just not good business, and that is what this is after all, a business. Musicians and Record labels are in it to make money, and that's it. This is there business, and anyway you look at it those who download mp3's without paying for them are stealing. Its that simple.
So all you people who disagree with Gene should open your own business - let people pay what they want or just take what ever your selling and see how long you can stay in business for.
No, downloading music is not like stealing cars. Because the commodity being sold in the case of music is , by its fundamental nature - information. Information is a fluid, constantly in flux. Provided that suitable social, electronic (etc.) systems exist, information will flow, morph, reproduce, give rise to new information. This is why the only way to ensure that your information is private is to keep it OFF such systems.
Now, when you buy a car, it is a physical object, and is not going to give rise to a new car on its own. Neither can your neighbour have access to that car and make an identical one in any case without buying parts on his own and with substantial investment.
In the age we have today, the cost of duplicating information of any kind is virtually nil. An analogy is in the use of language. Like MP3s, the cost of learning words other people have used is nil, and does not affect the information of the word as held by the original speaker. You don't see the Oxford dictionary or anyone for that matter trying to sell you words, or saying that if you use a certain word that they invented you must pay for it. (Trademarking is different because the fears there are not so much a semantic issue, but an issue of identity).
The same argument can be extended to IP Laws and such, and this is why the only real way to protect a patent is to keep some crucial bit of information or expertise out of the public domain (a.k.a proprietary).
Now music, is viral information that is intended to be used by the masses, and therefore releasing it is necessary for its existence. This requirement inherently implies that it will be duplicated. What the music industry is fighting, is a contradiction between what they want, and the nature of their product. Guess who's going to win?
Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Just because Gene Simmons can lick his own ass while playing guitar, he thinks he's qualified to comment on anything else?
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Actually it IS theft in a way. "Theft of service". That's where you make use of something without
paying for it and without removing it. Like sneaking onto the subway without dropping your token
into the turnstile. You didn't steal the subway. You can be charged with theft of service and go to
jail.
Yeah, put *that* tune on your 45 spindle and smoke it!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
You know, Kiss and Simmons deserve the Weird Al treatment.
Come to think of it, Gene LOOKS like the character in the
Weird Al video "I'll Sue you!".
I would hesitate to look at Gene Simmons for any kind of intelligent statement on anything.
I never liked KISS.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
People also do not want to pay several times for the same thing.
For example, I have cable TV and watch South Park when I can. But if I miss an episode, is it OK for me to download it it and watch it? I already paid my TV bill...
Or I have few hundred vinyl albums in my basement. I could record songs from those to my computer and then encode to MP3. Instead I download them. Is this OK?
Or am I "stealing".
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I think he got so angry that he might have dribbled a bit over the top of his Depends®.
Gene, if those same college kids wouldn't start bands, your dear music industry that leeches on those talented college kids wouldn't even exist. So stop whining.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Actually this is not a reasonable idea.
I'm a software engineer and I create software everyday. I'm sure I suffer more than some guy writing a song. But if I want to get money, I need to continue working. I get no royalties from software I wrote 10 years ago (even though it is still used everyday).
You should get paid for working - not for having done work once, and then be paid forever.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
... for causing rapid changes in markets thereby increasing the amount of education I need, thereby increasing college tuition.
All is fair in love and war.
and the poor movie sales is because of halo 3, yes *nods head*
destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
It is literally not possible for you to have noticed that the idea is popular without seeing other arguments for the practice. Therefore you are either an oblivious idiot or a troll. I know which one I'm betting on, but just in case you're an oblivious idiot: real property cannot be perfectly copied. When real property is stolen, the original owner no longer has it. When people say music is 'stolen', they actually mean 'copied'. If you could generate a perfect copy of a piece of property that a friend owns, such as a car, and then drive away in the copy while your friend drives away in the original, would it be wrong to do so? Sure, it might put the auto industry out of business, but there's nothing that says any particular industry is guaranteed to exist and grow forever. How many steam ship companies exist today? How many farriers? How many blacksmiths? How many outhouse salesmen? Some of all of the above, I would imagine, but nothing like the numbers in which they once existed (potentially excluding outhouse salesmen; I'm not sure how many of those there ever were). There, now you've heard at least one other argument.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Once something has changed that's it. You will need to lock up a lot of people to change the situation.
It's the same with alcohol and drugs, once they've taken hold it takes a very determined leader to try and exstinguish such things. It was tried in the US in the early 1900s and failed.
Gene is old school, he simply doesn't understand the way people think these days. I would love to see him survive on the money available to an average college student.
Actually it IS theft in a way. "Theft of service". That's where you make use of something without
paying for it and without removing it. Like sneaking onto the subway without dropping your token
into the turnstile. You didn't steal the subway. You can be charged with theft of service and go to
jail.
That might be the case if music was a service, which it isn't. This is already covered by copyright laws - I don't understand why people seem to feel the need to twist other laws into applying too. Copying music is copyright infringement, it is not theft, burglary, piracy or genocide, no matter what the RIAA may like to claim.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Well, Gene Simmons is right, sorta, when he points out the core issue:
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. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy.
No, he isn't. Gold has utility beyond holding arbitrary worth. It's responsible for jacking up the price of certain cables by 1000% for its presence on connectors. It's also GREAT for plating things with. Plus, it's really dense so it's good for throwing at stuff, too. Plus it's really useful for making idols out of. AND you can look really cool when you get a gold coin and you bite it to make sure it's real. So I have to take exception to Mr. Simmons' words here and to your endorsement of them. Since I can't disagree with Mr. Simmons to his face, I'll take it out on you.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Right, because the music industry certainly gives a shit about right or wrong. Oh, wait ...
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Or I have few hundred vinyl albums in my basement. I could record songs from those to my computer and then encode to MP3. Instead I download them. Is this OK?
Ethically I can't see a problem with this.
In the UK it is illegal to copy music for your own purposes iff you change the format (e.g. ripping CDs into Vorbis format so you can play them on your Vorbis player). In fact, Sony have been banging on recently about this, saying that it's illegal for people to load up their iPods with stuff ripped from their (legally purchased) CDs and that everyone must rebuy their whole music collection in MP3 format (presumably even the stuff that isn't available anymore?). Of course, everyone is ignoring them and the interesting thing is that Sony themselves have made plenty of products that are more or less useless unless people do these illegal conversions - e.g. Minidisc, etc.
The more the content industry bangs on about copyright infringement, the more they look like complete idiots... and greedy idiots at that. Whilst people like sticking within the law, the fact that the content industry seems only to be interested in treating its own customers like crap I think more and more people will find reasons to avoid paying for stuff.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Farmers getting paid to not grow crops, or getting money to produce ethanol from soil-crops even though it's a down's syndrome solution to our need for energy. Algae in a vat FTW!
;)
Also, the most conservative states are the ones which, proportionally to tax contributions, get the most 'free money' handed to them by the Federal Government. Next time some guy from New Mexico or Alabama or Arizona starts bitching about lazy bums getting welfare handouts, remember this and smile
Blar.
Hey look, a 50 year old rocker with no career has an opinion! Apparently he was so busy with his opinions that not only did he not pay attention to facts, but he managed to convince me that every bit of rebellious fun that was KISS's music is worthless tripe worthy of getting nuked off my PC. Grats Gene, not only did you make yourself look like a complete tool, but you lost a fan. Pathetic washed up hack.
If you're not a Conservative by the time you're 40, you have no money.
A liberal wants you to give your money to the government so the government can give it to the poor.
A conservative wants you to give your money to the government so the governmnet can give it to him. He says he's against taxes, but he's only against himself paying taxes. If you don't pay yours he's up in arms.
The guy you see risking his life and spending his sweat to build that road isn't getting the government money. His employer sits back in his air-conditioned office and pays hime a pittance from the vast fortunes government gave him to build the road.
Wealth isn't created in the board room or on wall street. Wealth is created in the factory, behind the fry cook's stove, in the programmer's cube, on the construction site. The wealthy don't create wealth, they aggregate it.
America is strange in that its "conservative" party the Republicans would have you believe that they are Christians, when Christianity is decidedly anti-capital.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The reason gold is expensive is because it looks pretty (and humans, like crows, are fond of teh shiny), is stable (and thus does not intrinsically lose value over time through degradation), and is limited in supply.
Digital files are shiny (in the sense that people want them), are stable (relatively), but they are not limited in supply.
Simmons screws up when he uses gold as the basis for his argument. He should have instead used a good (or service) for which supply is relatively limitless -- and here we have few examples to work from.
The music industry dinosaurs, Simmons included, fail to realize that a fundamental aspect of their market has changed. It's not that their business model no longer works -- it's that their economic model no longer works. The business model depends on the economic model, but the problem runs far deeper.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I think Music from "the Elder" is as relevant today as when it was released...
An article about dinosaurs back-to-back with one about Gene Simmons' opinions. Are you going to try to pass that off as mere coincidence?
"That's not a business model that works."
Truer words were never spoken.
Here's the truth also, Mr. Simmons. No business model will work because in the age of computerized publication, content is no longer a business. Period. It's too easy to produce when your average high-school student, with a job as a checkout bagger, has access to cheap (and complete) digital publication and production tools.
I can do the job of what used to be a $1M+ recording studio/pressing plant on a $500 PC, and post it to a bittorrent on a $25 Internet account, and retain full rights. This means I can't make money off of the music alone. QED.
This brings us back to square one, as you say, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"
Right again, Mr. Simmons. Music is no longer a business. Trading oil futures is a business. Music is not. It is about the music, again. All you businessmen need to find a business to get into. I suspect you were never actually a musician, but I could be wrong.
Gutenberg put a lot of preachers and wandering storytellers out of business too. He put the entire Catholic Church out of business, in fact, in the space of about 100 years. This is the kind of change we are talking about here. This is big. I think we should do it with fewer "Inquisitions" this time, if we can avoid them, as you so stupidly encourage.
It's also quite normal. The world changes. There is no longer a business model for making money off of content. End result: There's a mountain of crap out there and it's harder to find quality stuff, but there's a banquet of quality under that mountain, so you must make money some other way. There's no longer any money in content alone.
You want a business model? Reliably help people sift through all the crap. You'll be in direct competition with Google, of course.
Sad but true. Your day is over, Gene. Adapt or die already.
--
Toro
Sounds good, better stick some drm on it though.
I just wanted to mention that Niggytardust, the new album by Saul Williams (produced by Trent Reznor) is available online. There are two options:
1) Pay nothing. (192kbps mp3)
2) Pay $5. (192kbps mp3, 320kbps mp3 or FLAC)
http://niggytardust.com/
I got the FLAC, haven't listened to it yet.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
If you're unsure that Gene Simmons really isn't an idiot, read this transcript of his interview with Terry Gross on NPR:
http://www.rof.net/wp/carriep/TERRYGRO.HTM
Terry Gross: Are you trying to say to me that all that matters to you is money?
Gene Simmons: I will contend, and you try to disprove it, that the most important thing as we know it on this planet, in this plane, is, in fact, money. Want me to prove it?
Terry Gross: Go ahead.
Gene Simmons: The first thing you need -- besides air, which so far is free, and by the way if you went scuba diving, you're paying for air -- the other thing besides that is food, it's what we need to survive. I don't know what other tool I would use besides money to buy it. Although, as a woman of course you have the ability to sell your body, then get the money, and then, with that, get food. But ultimately money is part of it. And so --
Terry Gross: [laughs] You -- you -- you are weird.
Gene Simmons: Really? How do you get food?
Terry Gross: Well, not by selling my body. But --
Gene Simmons: But that's a choice you have that I don't. But getting to the money part, money is the single most important thing on the planet, including the notion that uh, love gives you everything. That's a lot of hogwash. Because although I subscribe to the romantic notion of life --
Terry Gross: Well, let's cut to the chase. How much -- how much money do you have?
Gene Simmons: Gee, a lot more than NPR.
Terry Gross: Oh, I know. I -- you're very defensive on money, aren't you?
Gene Simmons: No, I'm not, I'm just trying to show you that there's a big world out there, and reading books is wonderful. I've certainly read, well, perhaps as many as you have, but there's a delusional kind of notion that runs rampant in --
Terry Gross: Wait, wait, could we just get something straight?
Gene Simmons: Of course.
Terry Gross: I'm not here to prove that I'm smart --
Gene Simmons: Not you --
Are you sure about that? I've never heard of "theft of service" and can't find it anywhere in my states' laws. It seems like in the case you mention there's a much simpler and less contorted charge that would also land you in jail -- trespassing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Damn you, 17 USC 1201!
College Students Blame Gene Simmons For Crappy Music (which causes Music Industry Woes).
News at 11.
*breaks out the notepad* Gene Simmons - RIAA Shill.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
How does it work? I'm saying the record company's claim to the copyright is bankrupt and shouldn't be honoured. The bands don't get much, money from record sales, with most of that taken by the record company for "marketing" the band and for anachronisms like breakages, etc. Why should record companies strong-arm performers into creating music for the record companies to whore out to the world for excessively large amount of money? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but when one's directly targetting the other, as in this case, then surely it's a step in the right direction. Sharing music online doesn't hurt bands, as bands don't give a shit about record sales, just publicity and public performances (which get them the majority of their income).
So, in short, if you like music, it's your duty to share. Even bands are realising this now.
So true. Why is it that the "try before you buy" only works in the car industry? I can take a car out for a test drive before I buy it to know if I like the feel. Mind you, this doesn't give me any indication to the car's reliability or dependability, but at least I got to feel what it's like. I may never buy or afford a BWM, but at least I can go to the dealer and get an idea of what all the hype is about. Some people may argue that buying a car is a huge investment and it is the consumer's right to take it for a spin. Well, a house is a much bigger investment yet I don't think I could convince a realtor or home owner to let me live in the house for a few days before I decide to purchase it. The RIAA at one time was relevant: it controlled a HUGE distribution channel. Today, anybody can have that distribution channel if they use the Internet properly. Here's what you need to get yourself started in music today: 1) Talent 2) A place with good acoustics to record 3) Good digital recording equipment 4) Marketing: Google, Digg, Slashdot, Facebook, etc. 5) Distribution: P2P, HTTP, etc... Bands make more money off shirts than they do from album sales: give away the music, and sell your fans a shirt to further promote yourself. If you RTFA, Gene shits on the music industry too "The record industry is in such a mess.", "The record industry doesn't have a f---ing clue how to make money.": he's right. They are relying on an old business model and not taking any risk: they build acts like NKOTB, BSB, and Britney to market the crap out of, but they consider other bands with actual musical talent and/or genius too niche to make any real money. Also, consider the music biz isn't that simple either: there are two types of music creators well, 3 really, but I'll keep "shitty" out for now). These two types are "fad" and "long term". Consider fad as Milli Vanilli, Britney, the Mini-Pops, BSB. Consider "long term" Madonna, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, etc. Cripes, some of these people aren't even alive yet their albums still sell! The market will decide the future of the music biz.
GENE SIMMONS NEVER HAD A PERSONAL COMPUTER WHEN HE WAS A KID.
How do we know? We know because our own well-documented research has shown conclusively that a child who lacks his own personal computer during those earliest school years will very probably grow up to be a bass player in a heavy metal rock band who wears women's fishnet pantyhose and sticks his tongue down to his kneecaps. Just like Gene Simmons.
Your child's future doesn't have to look like this.
The Banana Junior 6000 Self-portable Personal Computer System, complete with its optional software - Bananawrite, Bananadraw, Bananafile, and Bananamanager - is just what your four-year-old needs to compete in today's cut-throat world of high tech and high expectations.
The Banana Junior 6000...Buy one before it's too late. Gene's mother wishes she had.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"SmallFurryCreature" I take my hat off to you. That was easily the best post I've ever read in a thread on this topic. It might have been the best post I've ever read. I've certainly never written anything that good.
That was so good that I'll be copying it for use in the future during discussions on this topic on other message boards I frequent and in conversations with friends. This post gets pasted into emails going out to people I takl to on both sides of this argument. I promise you I won't take credit for writing it and will credit it to "SmallFurryCreature" on Slashdot. You cut right through the bullshit and nailed it.
Bravo!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Yes, i agree their *merchandise* is/was worth more then Elvis's. Their music isn't however.
Back in Elvis's days, selling barbie doll representations of yourself or playing cards wasn't really on the radar. Making decent music was.
College people made the industry. and i do agree they will break it too. But not for the reasons some bitter has-been like Gene thinks it will.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Carnival of Souls would not have been released if it wasnt leaked to the internet. It was the last album before they put the makeup back on, and they were just going to shelve it. It is arguably their best Album
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack?"
He's right about that... the "pay what you want" model won't work long term. It works now because it is novel, because the fans want to support the artists in this movement, and because nobody knows what everyone else pays... yet. But it would devolve into people just taking stuff because they'd feel like suckers whenever they found out they paid more than average. "Pay what you want" would end up like every other soft shareware project.
But that's not the point: the point is cheaper a-la-carte music, where more of the money goes to the artist and less to a marketing/distribution corporation. The price can still be set, like at iTunes. But there's finally a little competition in music distribution industry (thanks to illegal downloads) and as with most competition, the consumer wins.
Cheers.
Let me get this straight... he thinks that the music industry should have sued college kids out of existence... I am NEVER touching drugs. EVER.
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
I feel stupid now. The whole time I was reading this I was picturing RICHARD Simmons saying this, and wondering why in the world he would care, unless the college kids are downloading a bunch of "Sweatin to the Oldies!". :S
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
i have an opinion on IP that I don't want to discuss. instead, how about the fact that an old pervert is trying to make a case? seriously, pray your girlfriend never runs into this preditor as mine has.
Pay-what-you-feel-is-right is not a business model, its charity.
I don't think its a great idea when its for music, and I don't like it when its advocated for Software and Software Developers.
to buy music, so how could downloading music by college students actually affect sales? Before the internet, people would probably chip in for a tape or CD, then make copies for everyone.
Personally, I recorded music from the radio when I was too poor to buy music.
Guess whose music the college kids are going to start pirating just because?
A guy whose main contribution to music is the length of his tongue has the nerve to rant about what works for musicians? Give me a break. Kiss stole Alice Cooper's act, stole Ozzie Ozbourne's riffs, stole their makeup from some San Francisco Hallowe'en party, and stole lyrics from whatever washroom wall was handy.
If this guy ever had a creative bone in his body, nobody's yet seen any evidence of it. No doubt he thinks he's owed money by the three or four pathetic losers who are downloading his drek for free. After all, when you haven't released an album in a decade or two, maybe you start doubting your ability to steal from internet-savvy artists.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Using this law, wouldn't it be illegal to make a mixed tape from your CD collection ?.. after all you would be changing the format.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Knights In Satans Service ... well *duh* of course they're on the RIAA's side.
Gene Simmons saying "It's about the music." I thought it was about the merch and pyro?
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Music can be a service. Some FM stations carry a sub-carrier to broadcast commercial free
music ("musak") to stores, doctors offices, etc. A fee must be paid for this. Homebrew illegal
adapters used to "steal" this channel in a commercial setting would be a theft of the music "service".
Granted copyright law is often applied here, but it is still theft of an intangible item.
Check NYC case law on the subway theft of service bit. Yeah they could slap on a trespassing charge
too, but since the subway itself is public access (for a fee) they usually don't. Now if you got into
the train yard to spray paint the off duty trains they WOULD charge you with trespassing as well as
destruction of property.
Sue the college kids out of existence? What, all of them? Aside from being impossible, the economic consequences would be pretty devastating.
I didn't read the article (sue me), but I have never found "are they on crack" to be a logically-sound attack or defense for an argument. Sounds like he can't get his head around the peculiarities of digital distribution, nor the reasons why such peculiarities could potentially make such a business model functional. Even if it turns out that this business model is doomed to fail, it won't be for any of the reasons that Gene Simmons would offer.
Times change. Cope.
My info doesn't break down the handouts, but you can start here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
Nothing wrong with getting a little help, I just can't stand a hypocrite.
Blar.
Using this law, wouldn't it be illegal to make a mixed tape from your CD collection ?.. after all you would be changing the format.
Correct - it is indeed illegal.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Gene Simmons, Kiss-Off!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Some folks may wish to discount his business opinions, since Gene apparently doesn't know where the world's gold goes:
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.
Wow.
New Music!
"I get no royalties from software I wrote 10 years ago (even though it is still used everyday)."
Thats the agreement you entered into. Other people write software, retain the copyright and continue to generate revenue on new sales of existing work.
I continue to sell books I wrote several years ago. I wrote them, I sell them directly as pdf files via the web, there is no "industry" between me and the end user. The possibility of people paying for new material I write motivates me to write. If the law did not give me control over the copying I would feel far less inclined to write. If creative people do not have that financial motivation creative endevour would tend towards those who are independently wealthy, very committed or have wealthy patrons.
Are you are against the idea of people who create having control over the copying of that material. That is not the current legal status quo in most of the world.
Gene... who?
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Bingo! He's really NOT a musician anymore. A buddy of mine used to work for a large financial firm, and he flew out to New York a few years ago to some kind of convention. Of course, this included mingling with many from the Wall Street community. (He did QA testing and support for one of their stock market ticker type applications.) He actually ran into Gene Simmons at this thing, and was a little taken aback. He was dressed in a business suit and talking stock options and trading ... *nothing* like you'd picture a member of KISS looking.
The man can tell you much more about investment advice than he can which new models of electric guitars are any good. That's for sure.
KISS hasn't been anything but a "franchise" to make money off the older crowd's past memories, for at least the last 20 years now.
he should stick to selling diet plans.
Don't assume that you're getting all that stuff from federal income tax. Most of that is allocated to paying off loans, so you're actually mostly servicing the banks, not The People.
All those nifty civilized things your tax money gets that don't count as usury or murderous are primarily coming from the plethora of other less obvious taxes: property, goods/services, state income tax, etc.
If we had all the money back that we've flushed down the Iraq toilet, who knows what all nifty stuff I'd be getting for my investment in this nation?Yeah, I wonder just how effective half a trillion dollars would be if applied to international pro-democracy propaganda, educational support programs, donations to civil society, and even providing support for local pro-democracy institutions? You know, empowering local Iraqis and Afghanis to rise up and build an equitable system from the grassroots? I'm guessing 500 billion bucks buys a lot of freedom using non-violence-- if that's actually your goal. It's ten times the domestic annual education budget, so one could easily double the domestic budget, and 'educate' the world too.
Here's what Americans would have gotten out of such a radical foreign aid approach: goodwill, security, credibility, a stronger domestic civil sector, more freedom at home, less fear and twisting of the national political culture. Less opportunity for kleptocrat fascism at home. Very likely, actual modern democracies in target countries. A safer world, a smaller american military, fewer overseas bases and invasion forces. Less money and power flowing into Halliburton, Lockheed et.al., and a different track for the future, one that doesn't need FEMA preparing for martial law.
Damn those pesky terrorists
The whole Music industry as it exists was envisioned by Harry Houdini. His idea was to record his performances and charge for copies of them, rather than do it himself. That is the model by which all recorded media has been sold.
What has changed is that the primary investment required to produce the goods, the physical media, has shrunk to almost nothing. The manufacturers no longer provide a service. Instead they are looking to artificial remedies to prop up their business model that was created by technology but has now been taken away by technology.
Gene Simmons is a primary example of someone who does not see that the corruption of society required to maintain the old business model will, in the end, destroy a lot more than just the music industry. In the long run, all our freedoms will have to be eliminated to protect the industry, because there is no way to stop it in a free society.
The battle is coming and its a big one. I think 100 years of media conglomerates has been quite enough, thank you very much.
I just downloaded the entire KISS discography, and it's been years since I attended college.
In Europe liberal does not mean anti-government, and it is nowhere near libertarian.
In the US liberal does not mean libertairan either. Liberal in the US would be something more towards socialist.
I believe, is that in the US the matter of the economy is already settling - capitalism is the only force people will tolerate, so the choice between parties lies on social issues.
That is not true, economic issues are also of great important to US voters. Also, capitalism is not a force that is tolerated, it is considered a decision making process that we believe is more efficient than central government planning and an efficient way of rewarding risk taking and demonstrating initiative. Government is the force that is tolerated, and government does excerpt force upon both individuals and corporations. This includes some socialist concepts.
Not a musician!? 20 years?! Tell me with a straight face that this isn't music!!!
I would hesitate to look at Gene Simmons for any kind of intelligent statement on anything. I never liked KISS.
That is a fairly ignorant statement, personal opinions regarding his music prove nothing. If anything, a quick investigation of his career should demonstrate that he is highly intelligent and highly successful in areas of business.
Besides, doesn't the evidence prove him correct? Bands that were incredibly well known and highly regarded, thanks to the promotion of those evil record companies executing that old business model, chocked while experimenting with a new business model. What do you think will happen to new and unknown bands? Face it, artists have always needed sponsors, the royalty and churches in the past, the record companies in more recent times. Support directly from fans yields merely subsistence in the optimistic scenarios.
(No apologies to Stanley/Delaney =P)
You need suin'
You're lookin out for download dance
Yeah, it's true
You know you got to take your chance
When I laugh
Well baby don't you know you can cry
Cause you ain't enough money to keep the monster satisfied
Well you know
I got the kind of suin' that you need
I'm so crass
That's why the ladies call me Mister Sleaze
They call me Mister Sleaze
You try suckin'
But gettin' on your knees don't make it
You try teasin'
But baby you can't even fake it
Make it clear
But baby you can even see my lawyer
So stop those tears 'cause baby you can't even leave
Yeah, you know
I got the kind of suin' that you need
(The kind of suin' that you need)
That's why the ladies call me Mister Sleaze
Well you know
I got the kind of suin' that you need
I'm so crass
That's why the ladies call me Mister Sleaze
Mister Sleaze
(repeat and fade)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The music industry stinks. It needs to be torn down and a new model put in it's place. I see no problem with the music industry being destroyed, no matter who you blame.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
All this from a guy who's greatest contribution to his civilization is dressing up in a 7 foot (3.2 meter) cat suit and wagging his tongue incessantly in the mass media simulating cunnilingus. That's it. Now he's saying that thousands of people should be thrown in jail because they are no longer giving him their money.
This guy is a total asshole. No one should take him seriously.
Gene Simmons and KISS have always been about protecting their image to sell more product. He is right, there is more in the value in KISS army gear than there is in Elvis stuff, only because there is so much of it out there. I remember the resurgence of KISS merchandise in the 90's. They have plastered their name and logo over everything (for the second major times of their careers). They are ONLY about making money and milking the cow for all it's worth. His opinion is therefore IRRELEVANT, he is the old model and the old model refuses to adapt to the new or even acknowledge it.
Also, consider the music biz isn't that simple either: there are two types of music creators well, 3 really, but I'll keep "shitty" out for now). These two types are "fad" and "long term". Consider fad as Milli Vanilli, Britney, the Mini-Pops, BSB. Consider "long term" Madonna, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, etc. Cripes, some of these people aren't even alive yet their albums still sell! The market will decide the future of the music biz.
I don't understand. What's the difference between Britney Spears and Madonna?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, but he has a reality show nowadays, doesn't he? That must mean that his opinion means something to the mass of bumbling morons out there.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
This was a band that was putting itself on kid's lunchboxes, launching a cartoon, and putting themselves in comic book form almost from the minute they formed. Gene Simmons has the gall to say "it's about the music" when his band concentrated much more on their marketting and pyrotechnics show than they EVER did their music, and when his whole shtick was to wear stylized makeup and create an on-stage persona that played to lip-synced tracks.
Who the f**k is he kidding?!?!
Gene Simmons is just a greedy old fart who is mad than he might take a hit on that monthly royalty check that he so richly undeserves. He's worried he might have to cut back on his "Jewel-Encrusted Ferarri" budget this year.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It is wrong, and illegal, but it isn't stealing.
It's wrong? Why? I'd say the morally wrong position is that it's OK to artificially impose scarcity on an infinite resource for personal profit.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Great article. This guy pretty much sums up what we've all been trying to say here on /., but has a lot of interesting facts about some of Gene's litigious adventures. Being a music writer, he also has some good insights on the industry, old and new.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
Bringing Liberal and Conservative into this argument introduces a False Dichotomy of the situation. Not because there is a third, fourth, or even fifth option here but because being Liberal or Conservative HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT FAIR USE! I would classify myself as Conservative but I still think that the RIAA should not be suing college students. Especially because the RIAA can never prove who even took the file; but also because its not fair to assume that if somebody shares a file all of the sudden they are thiefs. The Recording Industry is burning both ends of the candle; screwing the artist and the consumer at the same time. This is ridiculous.
Radiohead and Reznor have more creativity in their little fingers than Simmons ever had.
Musical creativity does not indicate business sense. I believe that Simmons has adequately demonstrated that he does have far greater business sense. I wouldn't dismiss his insight so quickly, we are discussing a new business model.
Radiohead and Reznor have deviated from conventional rock mediocrity and at least been creative. Kiss just upset parents in the 70's and sang the music that now appears on MOR stations everywhere.
And your children/grandchildren will be saying that Radiohead and Reznor just upset parents in the 90s and merely appear on the oldies stations nowadays. Musicians sell rebellion to youth, they engage in the outrageous to establish credibility. The bar gets moved up and their antics become quaint in a couple of generations. Sorry, but Reznor will join Elvis and the Beatles in this regard. I'm not sure he will have their longevity though, he may be too closely tied with the culture of the 90s.
.. we would need 3 more worlds to survive overpopulation;
I surely hope this isn't called a "medical breakthrough" since our bodies are not even made for such extensions..
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
It's wrong? Why?
If someone puts resources (time, effort, money, etc.) into something, and then says "I'm happy for people to have a copy of this under these conditions", do you not think it wrong to take a copy and completely ignore those conditions? (Where the conditions may include ideas like handing over some money, not taking the content and passing it off as your own produce, etc.)
I'd say the morally wrong position is that it's OK to artificially impose scarcity on an infinite resource for personal profit.
Where is the scarcity? CDs are pretty abundant, stuff released as downloads aren't really scarce.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
There's an interesting game called Ultimatum out there. Let's say we're playing it and I'm the person that does the cut. The rules are as follows: I choose how much each of us gets (let's say we have 100 USD to share) and you accept or reject it. If you don't accept, neither of us gets anything. If I give you too little (99-to-1 or 90-to-10) you can go "screw you guys" and I lose also.
If your customers offer you this kind of scheme you wouldn't be playing with them in the future, right? You're actually kind of playing this game when they want you to do something for them. If the price is too high (they get too little, you get too much) they'll disagree and there won't be a sale.
Of course when the work is done beforehand and the payment is not mandatory the thing is quite different, but my view on the music has been since 90's that it's not the record I'm buying I'm paying for, it's for the next record they're going to make - and if they cut the middle man it's even better!
?SYNTAX ERROR
I would just like to point out that in all my years of reading Slashdot posts, yours is the single best post I have ever seen with regards to both eloquently explaining why copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft, legally, and also conceding the fact that it is still illegal and wrong. I predict many other posters will take you to task over what you said but you really nailed it perfectly.
Schnapple
Years ago, in the late 90's, one of my Dewey beach housemates was a buyer for Spencer's Gifts. She handled the Kiss merchandising as well. Gene "Tongue the dolla$" Simmons would call up every day to her to get the -daily- sales figures from Spencer's sales war-room. She thought it was so funny, as she wasn't a real fan, and that their "reunion" tours and public appearances always coinciding with declining sales of their Spencer's merchandising.
After all those years between then and now, I finally watched that show a few months back that follows him and his family. Seeing how he is in real life, her conversations in dealing with him become so much more indicative of the type of person he is. This guy, since the early days of the band, is only in it for the money, hands down. The comments from him in TFA are zero-surprise for me.
Ok, this has gone on for far too long. In traditional Billco fashion, I'm pulling out all stops!
Gene Simmons is a joke. He hasn't sung or spoken anything worth hearing in three decades. He claims to be the biggest dog in the world (whores are cheap!). He's not even from here, he immigrated to the USA as a child yet stomps around like he's America's golden boy.
The man's a has-been's has-been, and the only way he can get anyone to even look at him is to behave like a ravenous ape. He will say and do anything to get attention, and this is a prime example.
The man has nothing to gain from combating piracy. His best years are long gone. He just wants to go around the talk show circuit for a while, make a last buck then die doing speedballs off a dozen underage hookers' asses.
FUCK HIM!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"Just about everyone outside the US views libertarianism as some sort of extreme anarcho-capitalism being economically far right, and socially conservative (Small government)."
That used to be true, but it isn't any more. Libertarianism in this country has changed radically. At one time, Libertarians were for small government first, and then social conservatism second. Libertarian Republicans raised money for Barry Goldwater by selling Bibles at his rallies in the early 60's.
My, how they've changed though.
In the past twenty years, Libertarians (both LP members and Libertarian Republicans) have done a 180 on social issues, embracing abortion on demand, the legalization of prostitution and drugs, and turning very hostile to religion. There's a strong atheist contingent in Libertarian circles now. In addition, they're polar opposites of conservatives (and the vast majority of the population, for that matter) on the illegal immigration issue, advocating open borders and a completely open labor situation. To top it off, they've become damn near isolationist in their foreign policy thinking.
These aren't your father's Libertarians. And that's why there's a messy divorce going on in the GOP right now. The Conservatives and the Libertarians have basically realized that their ideas are becoming mostly incompatible.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Well if unauthorised copying has already destroyed the music industry, then we might has well carry on doing it, since it can't do any more harm to that industry, right?
Gene, you're a relic. I love your music, but you're obsolete.
They're using their grammar skills there.
People complain that KISS is not exactly great music. Of course not. This is the band that had to dress up in ridiculous costumes, employ every gimmick imaginable from fire breathing to smoking guitars to get peoples' attention. I'm amused at this point, that people don't realize Simmon's chauvinistic and anti-P2P comments are merely part of the same gimmicks he's always employed to get attention: do/say something obnoxious.
Simmons falls into the same category as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. The worse thing that can ever happen to them is to be ignored. If you really want him to be as irrelevant as he ultimately is, you'll ignore his idiotic rambling. Even his reality show is staged. It's all a farce and he's laughing at all of us for even taking the time to call him a douchebag.
I could make a racist comment about his ethnicity but I'll let that one die.
Nihilism means nothing to the dancing peasants
I'll concede your points, but state that the underlying notion is that "Gold is something that has value, and that can be owned." You're right, he should have used paper currency; we can use gold for all kinds of things, and that people like it being purty. But it is possible to imagine a society that, in spite of its inherent interest to us, placed no value on gold; or one that maintained that gold belonged to everyone; or one that decided that the whale, being a Royal Fish, when it washed ashore belonged to the king.
Excellent point on the distinction between a business model and an economic model, but I disagree on the shiny: what has made copyright work in the past has been A) the scale needed to infringe on copyrights and B) the fact that the average person buys a tangible physical object.
A) means the number of players is limited, and B) means that the people see themselves as buying something. Copyright is what "limits the supply" on your reading, but it's only really limited according to the owners' wishes and capabilities, and, generally speaking, scarcity doesn't have much to do with mass media's price. B) has a not-unimportant psychological effect. We can argue about whether ideas exist, but we can point to a CD and say "That exists".
Long before any of this nonsense, people were making tapes of records, covering songs at performances, copying texts, and all without worrying about copyright issues. While it is copyright infringement, it's been a zone where societal norms and the law have been at odds. The economic situation has changed where what was once a tolerated popular activity on the fringes of the IP economy has rendered obsolete their current system. And no amount of social engineering, legislation and lawsuits is going to change that.
Seriously, does anyone care what this guy has to say? not to mention he is already been proved wrong....
If i wanted to know something about KISS i'd ask gene simmons, if I wanted to know anything else (dating advice, how to raise kids, etc.. (well maybe not makeup removal..) he'd be the last person i'd ask.
>Are you are against the idea of people who create having control over the copying of that material. That is not the current legal status quo in most of the world.
I'm all for the people who create new material having control over it for the limited time that was the original bargain, around 20 years seems fair. You get to make money off of it for a while, and then society gets the benefits of using it as a base for more creation. A lifetime plus 70 years is such a joke that I feel no remorse ignoring copyright laws completely.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Surely you jest? It's just a lame version of Prodigy's song. Not that I'm into the original version all that much either.
Bot Assisted Blogging
"There's something very basic in humans that less us understand the concept of "mine" and "yours", and apply it to physical objects. But what about ideas? Intellectual property is much more difficult for most people to wrap their minds around."
:p)). There's a huge differnce between ideas and implementations of those ideas, even if those implementations can be stored as bytes. And it's not difficult to wrap one's head around, most people understand the difference, otherwise they wouldn't download the stuff in the first place, they'd just be satisfied with the "idea" for a particular song, movie, game, etc. (I doubt most people downloading songs would be satisfied with merely downloading the sheet music (though even that is beyond the "idea" stage for a song, but you get the point).)
You label intellectual property as "ideas". Patents may be "ideas", but music, movies, video games, software, books, are concrete implementations of ideas, that took time, money, resources to create. The idea of a spreadsheet isn't the same as Excel. The idea for a video game taking place on a ring-world fighting alien religious zealots and parasites is not the same as Halo. The idea for a song about a man telling his lady that he'll be home late because he's busy rehearsing with his band is not the same as "Beth" (I used that example, since we're talking about Gene Simmons
""Downloading stuff that you didn't pay for" is not stealing. Stealing is a criminal act where you deprive someone of the use or enjoyment of property. Making a copy of a work is not criminal, nor does it deprive the copyright owner of anything. It can be against the wishes of the copyright owner, and the copyright owner can assert that you inflicted damages, but it is not stealing, just as hijacking an aircraft is not committing insurance fraud."
So, if I hack into my business competitor's computer system and copy trade secrets, but leave them intact on his computer system, I've not "stolen trade secrets"? Sorry, but colloquially speaking, it is "stealing", and it's called that. Maybe in court it'd be called something else, but let's get real here. Colloqually, "stealing" is obtaining something without proper authorization. Downloading a copy of music outside of the terms of the "creator" is obtaining a copy of music without proper authorization. (One of the example sentences for "steal" at dictionary.com is "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation".)
Even if you don't consider it "stealing", it's certainly "cheating" (you're cheating the "creator" by making use of his work outside the terms he provided for its use), so it's still one of the classic wrongs (lie, cheat, steal, kill).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
As a non-American, may I be permitted to ask "Who the hell is Gene Simmons?". Is he important to Americans, or anyone else for that matter? Why should what he say be of interest to 'geeks'?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
oh please will someone please tell that old fart, that the REAL Reason NO ONE Is Buying CD's is that their just to damned expensive it makes more sense getting them from I - Tunes Or Any Music Store Download service then going out and buying a $20.00 + cd when you could just buy a spindel of blank CD's Or DVD-R's For The Same Price, All I Can Say To Mr Simmons Is CHANGE OR DIE
...how many of those college kids were exposed to KISS through their downloads and actually bought his t-shirts, box sets, etc.
This is what the opponents to digital distribution without DRM typically fail to realize. All that money you spend on marketing cannot even begin to compare to the exposure you get from your music being downloaded.
I swear there was a research study done recently that pointed out that people who download music tend towards buying more CDs and other merchandise. They have a greater exposure to new music than a guy listening to the same tunes on his iPod or the person who listens to the radio.
Word of mouth = most efficient advertising ever.
"It's amazing what velocity can do when human beings are in season" -Matthew Good
"Artists have always needed sponsors", like Van Gogh?
Mr. Simmons has never impressed me as a musician. (I feel the same way about KISS than I did about Sigue Sigue Sputnik. Like "Why Bother?") Its a question of taste.
What I object to is that the artist always seems to get fucked by the very promotion machine that makes him or her the "artiste du jour" and then cuts the artist to ribbons with drugs and debauchery before moving onto the next "artists du jour". (I don't see KISS headlining anywhere anymore, now do I? [But then I wouldn't go see KISS play anyway, so I ain't looking am I?])
I have a great deal more respect for the Jonathan Coultons of the world than for the Gene Simmons.
If KISS had not been promoted and had to go forth on their talent only, they'd still be a bar band, playing at a strip mall in some suburb somewhere, with day jobs to go to. (Like MOST artists.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I Blame Gene for the music industries woes. He is part of the machine that flooded the market with commercialized crap that has nothing to do with quality artwork. We hear your crying and whining Gene. But don't cry to us because you don't like the smell of your own farts.
and I have a documentation technique named after me.
/. actually have brains.
I also have written about twenty or so articles about computer programming and object-orientation and have a few bogs about things.
Some people who post to
And what have YOU managed to talk a publisher into?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"with mass-reproducible art forms - music, photography, print, film, industries were created which took copyright away from the content creators"
What? Who took that copyright away? Not Congress, which is the only entity that can grant or revoke it.
What you're really saying is "if technology allows me to copy it, I'm going to do it no matter what the law says". Technology allows you to break into my house with a lockpick. That damn well doesn't make it moral.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm not clicking on that link until someone who's not at work can prove the parent poster isn't with the GNAA.
bytes are not atoms.
if i steal your coat, you won't have a coat. if I sneak up on you, measure your coat, and reproduce it at home, you haven't lots anything. same thing with digital copies.
-I only code in BASIC.-
"Simmons is writing his third book -- "Ladies of the Night," a "personal and historical overview" on the profession of prostitution -- coming this spring via his own publishing company, Simmons Books."
... when Gene Simmons wants to break the law by soliciting prostitution, it's okay. In fact, it's even okay for Gene Simmons to write a book and make millions of dollars recounting his lawless ways.
... I forgot, I hate KISS. These former rock-and-rollers are turning into everything they grew up hating and railing against.
... but you have to slip a $20 into Gene Simmons' pocket before that loud guitar starts playing.
So
I myself have plans to write a book, called "Rock, and Roll Over On Your Fans." It is a sordid tale recounting the hundreds of thousands of people that have lost their jobs due to me downloading KISS albums. Oh wait
"You don't have money or a fancy car And you're tired of wishin' on a falling star You gotta put your faith in a loud guitar."
Yeah
"Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not."
Your revolution is never coming. Not in this country, anyway. And the reason why no one listened to, or in your own words, tolerated the listening of bands like Kiss is because you wannabe-hippies lived in a completely different world than the blue collar kids that listened to Kiss and went to their concerts.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I have a friend who used to work for a merch company that did KISS stuff, who spilled the unsuprising fact that Gene is the biggest whore in the rock biz (this is all Gene's doing, plus a little from Paul--they cut out all the other members years ago). There are KISS condoms, a KISS coffeeshop, probably a KISS douchebag, and the piece de resistance, the KISS Kasket It should come as no suprise that Gene has zero interest in anybody who's not a potential customer, or who's not a chick.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If someone puts resources (time, effort, money, etc.) into something, and then says "I'm happy for people to have a copy of this under these conditions", do you not think it wrong to take a copy and completely ignore those conditions?
Nobody's taking anything from anyone. No matter how many copies I make of $KISS_ALBUM, Gene Simmons has the same amount of albums. If I insert a shiny disk that belongs to me into a CD burner that belongs to me and produce another shiny disk, all I have done is use my property as I see fit (as free people do). Gene Simmons is not involved in that activity and deserves no compensation for it.
I'm not saying artists don't deserve compensation. Just that they don't deserve compensation for copying. The fact that someone put some effort into making something does not negate my property rights.
Where is the scarcity? CDs are pretty abundant, stuff released as downloads aren't really scarce.
I'm talking about economic scarcity. A good is scarce if the supply is limited. Since the marginal cost of producing a copy of a song is 0, supply is infinite and therefor not scarce. If you have to pay in order to get a song, you are limited to how many songs you can afford. The resource has been made artificially scarce.
Think about the implications of a resource without scarcity. If someone had a machine that made unlimited food could he morally deny anyone a meal?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Downloading music without paying for it is not in itself illegal or even a tort. Downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright owner may be.
Besides, if Gene Simmons is on one side of an issue, the other side has to be the correct one.
Hey Media Cartel Apologists. It's official.
If Gene Simmons is on one side of the copyright issue, the other side must be the correct one.
I would hesitate to look at Gene Simmons for any kind of intelligent statement on anything.
Okay, admittedly, Shannon Tweed is only his "common law" wife, but she was the queen of the B-movies, back in the 1990's.
Her magnum opus, A Woman Scorned, is one of the epic B-movies of our era.
Check it out some time.
First -- I'm aware this post & my response are off-topic. I'm fine with modding down. I've been wanting to discuss this topic for a while so I'm going to go right ahead with my off-topic post.
Health care is expensive, yes, and for the reasons you state as well. However I think you're missing several key points in your argument. Medical training is only expensive for the prospective med school student because the U.S. government allows it to be. The U.S. stands alone among Western nations in its opinion that medical care is not considered a public service.
Medical training is only minimally subsidized by tax dollars. Med school (and health care in general) would be affordable if the U.S. government placed as much value on medicine as they do on the military industrial complex. Consider the no-bid contracts to Halliburton or the other greedy piglets suckling at the teat of government funds. Review the reports from the Office of the Inspector General in regard to Halliburton property in Iraq and you'll see just how much of our tax money Cheney's cronies have run off with. Halliburton can't account for 75% of the items it supposedly purchased with tax dollars -- and this isn't just office supplies. This is stuff like bulldozers, tractor trailers, computer equipment, etc. But somehow nobody squeaks about "fraud" or "waste". These thieves hide under the blanket of "support the troops" while they bleed the nation dry of funds that could be used for other, more constructive uses. All this while the real soldiers fighting the war have to deal with reductions in combat pay, removal of death benefits and reduced funding to the VA. Go fight and die, but don't get wounded because we don't have the money to take care of you.
But I digress. We're talking about what makes health care expensive. Has anyone considered the vicious circle that medical costs increase to meet the increasing cost of lobbying to keep costs high? The higher costs to consumers get, the more lobbyists you have to hire to explain to Congress why costs should be allowed to be so high, which in turn increases costs to consumers.
Let us consider the other factor driving up health care costs: drugs. The average person buys the line that pharmaceuticals cost as much as they do because the costs pay for research into new drugs. This argument holds as much water as your average Kleenex(tm), however, because drug research is the one aspect of the medical industry that is heavily subsidized by the government. The drug companies don't tell you about the real costs to them -- lobbyists and advertisements, both of which are entirely superfluous. Drugs are wildly profitable, especially if you need the drug to survive. Like HIV/AIDS or cancer patients. Or hemophiliacs.
Are you familiar with the situation hemophiliacs have to deal with in this country? No? Did you know the average hemophiliac runs a tab of $250,000 to $500,000 a year in clotting factor alone? Not preventative care, not doctor visits, not emergency room costs, just the drug they have to take to keep from bleeding to death. Severe hemophilia cases run well over $1,000,000 a year in factor. This isn't something they caught from indiscreet sexual encounters, this is a genetic disorder. But U.S. drug manufacturers make a killing of folks with this disability. Drug manufacturers in the U.S. keep the cost to create a unit of factor a closely-guarded secret. Why? Because they might get hauled into court for price gouging if it ever got out. In every western nation but the U.S., factor is fully subsidized by the government. Everywhere but here Hemophiliacs don't have to pay a red cent for having been born with a handicap. Yet here they can't get insurance coverage -- or if they do they burn through a lifetime's worth of coverage in 18 months.
Let me address your next point: "we live in a highly litigious society". True enough. But have you ever stopped to consider the reasons behind why there are so many med
Rants about KISS' artistic talents are useless. Artistic talent is of no value when developing a business model.
Your rant on the promotional machine chewing up artists supports my point. Simmons survived and mastered that machine, therefore he seems better qualified to develop a new business model that supports development of new artists and uses modern distribution.
Your observation that most artists would be struggling at bars and strip malls without the promotional machine is correct. The fact that some artists aspire to more guarantees that the promotional machine will continue and that with high failure rates one successful artist will have to support many unsuccessful ones.
It's funny, because I love Gene's box set. Why, I downloaded it off of a torrent site, and I love listening to it!
:P
Keep rocking on, Gene!
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Bands make an average of $1.00 per cd sold, Radiohead's experiment gave the band $2.26 per "cd" downloaded. I'll take failure like that if it is offered.
I would love to find a "job" that allows me to sit around, watch TV and belch creatively, but nobody wants to pay me for my artistic abilities when they can "copy" my belching technique. I still continue to do what I love, but only for close friends and family.
If you can't make money doing something you want, you had better want to do something else. Music isn't dying. The music industry cartel is declining compared to what they would prefer, but music is thriving.
"with the labels also to blame for not properly suing them out of existence"
College kids are, and will be a higher priority then music industry. Hell, we can live without good music, (remember the 80s?), but we cannot, as a society, live without college kids.
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
I'll tell you what additional "nifty" stuff you'd get: nothing.
If you think Iraq is stopping them from spending money, then you need to start paying attention and understanding the federal deficit.
As someone with a big mouth and a lot of definite political views, there are a freaking ton of libertarians here, as compared with the actual proportion of society at large that espouses those views.
The fact that they're not a majority here only underlines the fact that they aren't a majority anywhere but on libertarian political sites.
And finally, there are a lot of democrats that would scream bloody murder at some of the things I think are good ideas. The economic realities that persuade me that social services are a good idea also make me union-unfriendly, tariff unfriendly, and a solid proponent of a vastly simplified tax system.
The costs of dealing with the juveniles, elderly, and infirm exist for all societies. If you live in the US, you're going to learn more about that than you ever wanted to as the boomers start retiring. For every person who didn't save enough, there are kids and grandkids who are going to be feeling a financial hit as they try to take care of mom and dad.
Now a hardcore big 'L' Libertarian (neo-liberalism here, like the political party, not the little 'l' libertarianism which is the opposite of fascism) would say, "Good, they should have known better, and it's sure as hell not my fault, and not my responsibility." Sure, they may donate, but only on their own terms, and only to things that make sense to them personally. Assuming that their distaste for large bureaucracy carries over to big charities, they'll be spending their money on targeted charities (e.g. Meals on Wheels, not United Way). Assuming that the amount of money remains the same (which it won't), some charities will experience a glut, and others will experience a shortfall. Some services will be provided, and others, not.
Without any society-sponsored solutions, any shortfall will have to be made up by the families. Some family members may have to quit work, in order to care for loved ones...Another strain on the economy. The family has less money over all, and therefore less disposable income, which means less purchasing, which means less manufacturing, which means less manufacturing jobs, which means less jobs for countless other people up and down the economic food chain. Now imagine the biggest demographic bulge in our countries history, and imagine what that will be like without a full-societal effort, managed by an organization which is capable of directing the money where it is needed. Welcome to the Libertarian paradise.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I can basically do Decca Records circa 1934, or Motown circa 1965, on a $500 machine, right now. Not the masters, of course, but the end product that everyone listened to and loved. That's what I meant.
Nobody cares about the lost fidelity. Damn few can hear it. I happen to be one of those who can, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the realities of the popular music market. They're compressing most of the fidelity out of modern pop recordings now, precisely because people can't hear the difference.
Didn't the word "pressing" tip you off? Or perhaps you skipped over the words used to be. Re-read it. I was thinking of a studio and record pressing run circa 1965, played back on the technology of the age or through a transistor radio.
I can absolutely produce that sound on $500 worth of equipment.
--
Toro
Gene Simmons should shut the hell up and tell his almost 6' tall, gorgeous, black-haired, big-red-lipped daughter to turn 18 already so Maxim can do a spread, thanks.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Unless the appeal of that artistic talent to the consumer is the very foundation of your business model. Then it's pretty much essential.
But I see your point. His business acumen is relevant to his opinion in this case, not his artistic talent. The opinions of celebrities on subjects other than their craft are often given undue attention. Just because you can shred a guitar, that doesn't mean you have a knowledgeable opinion about deforestation.
I have to go ask my architect about time travel now.
Actually, we DO have a national healthcare plan in the USA
for the senior citizens. It's called Medicare and the seniors
like it very much, thank you for asking.
The whole fear mongering about national health insurance/care falls flat on its face when you realize that we already have massive government run health care systems that function rather well: Medicare, medicaid, VA hospital, and congressional/civil service health plans.
Not perfect by any means, but certainly not worse than many private plans.
If I insert a shiny disk that belongs to me into a CD burner that belongs to me and produce another shiny disk, all I have done is use my property as I see fit (as free people do).
In many jurisdictions this would be considered fair use or fair dealing and not copyright infringement, which rather invalidates your point. If you are going to make examples that claim that copyright infringement isn't wrong, at least pick examples that actually constitute copyright infringement.
When my original post talked about copyright infringement, I was quite clearly talking about copying content which you have not purchased.
Just that they don't deserve compensation for copying. The fact that someone put some effort into making something does not negate my property rights.
You do not have the right to make and distribute copies without a distribution licence. Doing so would be both illegal and wrong. As mentioned above, making copies for your own use is fine and so I'm not sure why you are discussing it here.
I'm talking about economic scarcity. A good is scarce if the supply is limited. Since the marginal cost of producing a copy of a song is 0, supply is infinite and therefor not scarce. If you have to pay in order to get a song, you are limited to how many songs you can afford. The resource has been made artificially scarce.
Firstly, the cost of producing a copy of a CD is not zero once you include the production (of the content) and advertising costs. Just because something is very cheap to reproduce once the original has been made, doesn't mean the average cost per item is low.
Secondly, if they were to just hand it out for free, as you seem to be suggesting they should, what is in it for the vendor? Why should they spend their time producing content that will gain them nothing?
Think about the implications of a resource without scarcity. If someone had a machine that made unlimited food could he morally deny anyone a meal?
Apples and Oranges - you don't need music in order to live. However, you seem to miss the fact that the drug companies already do this - they don't hand out drugs for free because it doesn't make economic sense for them.
You can try and apply your thinking to any product, even things without a zero production cost. Take computers, for example - what gives manufacturers the right to charge any more than the materials cost for computers? Oh yes, it's coz there would be no economic gain for them if they didn't make a profit so why would they bother?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"putting 100,000 to a million people out of work"
Let's say all those kiddies miraculously start to pay $1 for each song they download starting today. JUST WHAT JOBS WOULD BE CREATED?
Where do you think the money will go? to 1 million progammers building better music sharing software? or to Warner executive bonus pool?
Simmons is guilty of deception or willful ignorance. Take your pick.
But it has nothing to do with libertarians.
It's the 'capable of directing the money where it is needed.' clause that's the kicker.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've read about a restaurant that runs under the pay what you want model, and they were doing very well.
You can ether pay a small 'subscription' to the fire department prior to needing them or pay their big fee when when you have a fire.
Yes they often won't start fighting the fire until you sign on the dotted line.
It's easy to remove the profit motive, you just charter a non-profit fire department for the county. It's not a simple ether/or question. Many shades of gray.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What?!
Gene Simmons is not a musician. He may play an instrument, but he is no musician. Hopefully you understand the distinction. Prince is actually a very good musician and a damn good guitar player. You may not like his music due to your prejudices, but you cannot discount him as a musician.
Another contrast: Gene Simmons is a tool who just wants to make money. He has no morals or principles, he is just a self-absorbed jerk who wants to fill his pockets. Gene Simmons is the essence of a sellout -- one who uses every possible means to make money, integrity be damned. Practicality over idealism every time. Prince actually speaks out against the record industry and their draconian practices. I attended one of his shows and was given his latest CD. So was everyone else who attended. Prince embodies what people here talk about: using CDs to advertise his shows.
You can always tell a good musician by how he plays live, not how he plays on record. Why else do you think all the posers are so pro-RIAA? Because if they had to make a living performing they wouldn't be able to cut it. Real musicians, ones who can play their instruments, write songs, and express themselves, sound GREAT in concert and the CD is just a substitute for the live performance. Posers are the ones where after you have the misfortune of attending one of their shows, you feel ripped off. Real musicians stay relevant for decades, and posers fade out after a few years. If it weren't for his outspoken idiocy, Simmons and the horse he rode in on (KISS) would have faded away a LONG time ago. Even if people still know who Gene Simmons is, who gives a CRAP about the music? Even if you like the 70's thing, there are WAY better bands from the era who were doing things that were actually groundbreaking. KISS appealed to kids because it made their parents and teachers gasp. KISS is the musical equivalent of pro wrestling; a caricature of itself, just a bunch of kitsch.
blah blah blah
Ignore the damn kid throwing up on your lawn. It's just me.
Sincerely,
Jeff Tweedy
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Sure people who don't have Ferrari's outnumber those the do.
How about people that own real estate (or are on track to own real estate). That's often the key to long term financial success.
How about people who have jobs? They vastly outnumber the combined numbers of parasites and those that truly can't work.
Finally how about those that have guns and know how to shoot straight? The have-nots might come for what I've got, but they'll be holding their pistols 'gangsta' style. No worries.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We have sent far more then half a trillion (2007 dollars) down the foreign aid shithole.
What have we got to show for it? The president of Nigeria has a nice private jet. Israel is doing OK with our money, but everywhere else it is stolen by the third worlds corrupt leadership.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You won't know how well FDRs work turns out until after the baby boom has retired.
Basically they kited a big old check. The trust fund has only Federal IOUs in it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When my original post talked about copyright infringement, I was quite clearly talking about copying content which you have not purchased.
My point stands. If person A makes a copy of a shiny disk in the privacy of his own home that's entirely his business. If Person A then gives that disk to Person B, that's entirely their business. The government has no place interfering in a transaction between two consenting people.
You do not have the right to make and distribute copies without a distribution licence.
Sure I do. I have the right to do anything I want that doesn't harm another person. Just because the current government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean it's not a right. That just means we live under an oppressive and corrupt regime.
Firstly, the cost of producing a copy of a CD is not zero once you include the production (of the content) and advertising costs.
I said "marginal cost". Words have meanings. Learn them.
Secondly, if they were to just hand it out for free, as you seem to be suggesting they should, what is in it for the vendor? Why should they spend their time producing content that will gain them nothing?
I'm not suggesting anyone give away anything for free. I'm suggesting that I have the right to do with my property as I please. That includes making copies, destroying it, giving it away, turning it into a collage, whatever.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because someone put some effort into something they have a right to control its use. It makes about as much sense as having to pay the plumber every time you take a shit. Or giving a construction worker royalties every time you drive across his bridge.
However, you seem to miss the fact that the drug companies already do this - they don't hand out drugs for free because it doesn't make economic sense for them.
And that is absolutely 100% no question about it wrong! Just because the pharmaceutical industry is evil doesn't make it ok for the recording to be evil too.
You can try and apply your thinking to any product, even things without a zero production cost.
I wouldn't do that, my argument only applies to goods that are not scarce. And yes, I believe it works for all goods that are not scarce. If I had a machine that could create computers, or cars, or anything else out of thin air at no cost it would be reprehensible for anyone to try to stop me from distributing those goods.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If there was a machine that can replicate a 500,000 dollar car for 100 dollars....wouldn't you be asking yourself....should I really pay 499,900 dollars just for design?...should cars cost so much?
This is just market forces at work. People will pay (more or less) what they think a product is worth. If the vendor is charging too much, someone will produce a cheaper product and undercut them (possibly in the form of a bootleg, clone, knock-off). The vendor's job is to balance the price they are charging in order to maximise profits and minimise people going for the cheaper products. There is also the added complication that a reduced price may prompt your customers to buy more of the product, thus generating more revenue anyway.
The music and movie industries are in the somewhat unique position that, because of their insistence on stuff like DRM, the "cheap knockoffs" are actually of higher quality than the legitimate product. And they have no one to blame for this but themselves.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Okay, they're things with notional existence. You can't point to them and say "This thing here". That sequences of bytes are intellectual property is a secondary issue. The point is: many people don't intuitively think of them the same way.
For that matter, the notion that the value of something comes from the work put into it, and not from what it is, is a relatively late development (see, for example, all the medieval condemnations against lending at interest, since gold doesn't grow). In fact, this is the inherent contradiction in what I wrote earlier: while people seem to think value is something inherent in objects, it is actually a societally imposed (and negotiated) concept.
There are criminal laws against copying trade secrets, and they are referred to as theft. The dictionary example is of plagiarism, where someone claims to be the author of the work of another. Positing that a copyright is property (and I'm sure you'll accept that), the equivalent case of "stealing" would be, "He is claiming copyright on my work." Many of us know people who have been victims of this sort of theft, but it's not the same thing as infringing a copyright.
I'm not saying it's better or worse; just that the term "theft" does not apply, and if you insist on applying it, you are perverting the notion.
"Stealing" is not obtaining something without proper authorization. We have rights, and we enjoy those rights, as long as they don't infringe on others. I don't want to live in a society that assumes no rights and requires "proper authorization" for mundane tasks. Infringement of rights is a serious crime, perhaps more serious than theft, but there's no need to get so riled up about it that you end up criminalizing everything in a sort of 1984-meets-Windows Vista dystopia.
oh snap.
I'm going to start off saying that I think it is pretty clear that in general we agree that the current healthcare system in the US is pretty darn broken, because I'm going to spend the rest of this post talking about specifics upon which we disagree.
I don't think that medical training is only expensive because of the government, a MD is not subsidized in the same way that a law degree, a engineering degree, an MBA, or any other advanced degree is not subsidized. Medical training is also expensive because it's a lot of work, it takes a long time, and it involves a fair amount of time on very expensive equipment.
There is a lot wrong with the pharma industry, the emphasis on maintenance drugs rather than cures, and the obscene amount of money they spend on advertising not least of all. In general though, it is my opinion that in general the patent system actually functions pretty well for pharma. It costs a ton to develop a new drug, and dumping money into pharma R&D is really something we want to encourage. What we should be doing is severely limiting the amount of money that pharma can spend on advertising, which typically outstrips their R&D spending, and demand more complete disclosure so that things like fen-phen and vioxx are less likely to happen, and also so that when a drug does come off patent generics are actually able to produce it - although this is more of an issue with biologicals like factor VIII than drugs.
On law and medicine, I really don't see the high malpractice insurance costs as a problem with the healthcare system, but rather as a problem with the judicial system. With all the money being thrown around in these cases, how hard would it be to hire a judge who is actually either an expert, or at least extremely familiar with the medical field. Someone who actually understands what is involved in the practice of medicine could quickly and efficiently dismiss frivolous suits. I am of the opinion that tort reform capping damages is actually a bad idea. The problem isn't the guy who gets the wrong leg cut off and sues for $10 million, he probably actually deserves it, the problem is the people who are outraged when they have a known complication for a procedure and sue for $50000.
"The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"
That's only the second most important part. The most important part is the audience's love of music... because unless that is there, they won't care, and they won't pay.
The RIAA, by trying to reduce the channels that music leaks through without revenue, along with their increasing push to market shine on a sexpot rather than musical talent, isn't eroding their customer base, but it's underlying foundations. This is why suing Girl Scouts for singing popular songs was utterly asinine. My older sister spent twelve summers at Girl Scout camp between her time as a camper and counselor. Peter, Paul, and Mary was a major chunk of their songbook at that time. Guess how many of their albums she now owns? Guess who is the only musical act her impressionable "baby brother" has ever bothered to see live?
Gods, these people are morons... and the talentless ones are in charge.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
If person A makes a copy of a shiny disk in the privacy of his own home that's entirely his business.
Correct
If Person A then gives that disk to Person B, that's entirely their business. The government has no place interfering in a transaction between two consenting people.
Incorrect - unless you have a distribution licence this is illegal since you are infringing the copyright of the CD. I also maintain that it is wrong because it was clear when you bought the CD that this was not allowed. What do you believe gives you the right to acquire content and then completely disregard the wishes of the artist (which are protected by law). If everyone were free to distribute copies of the content, very few people would pay for it and the artists would not be able to make money. If the artists can't make money from their art it means they need to hold down another job which would massively reduce the amount of time they could dedicate to the art.
Sure I do. I have the right to do anything I want that doesn't harm another person. Just because the current government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean it's not a right. That just means we live under an oppressive and corrupt regime.
Why is harming another person excluded from your argument? The only reason you don't have the right to murder people is because the current government has revoked that right.
According to Webster, the definition of a right is "According to the law or will of God" - ignoring the religious angle for a minute, this means that your rights are defined exactly by the current government - there is no such thing as a right that the government doesn't recognise, if the government doesn't recognise it is by definition not a right.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because someone put some effort into something they have a right to control its use.
Within the confines of the law, that is exactly what they have the right to do.
And that is absolutely 100% no question about it wrong! Just because the pharmaceutical industry is evil doesn't make it ok for the recording to be evil too.
So you would prefer they didn't make any profit from the drugs they produce? I can assure you that medicine would take a severe downturn since without any incentive to invest in the research there would be no new drugs. Drugs aren't invented by magic - there is significant investment involved and if there is no return on that investment then it just plain won't happen.
If I had a machine that could create computers, or cars, or anything else out of thin air at no cost it would be reprehensible for anyone to try to stop me from distributing those goods.
Again, this brings us back to the problem that there was investment required in order to produce these goods in the first place. If anyone can clone them at no cost there would be no return on the investment so why would anyone bother to invest in the R&D in the first place?
Free redistribution works only in very specific cases. The software industry is a good example - Free software works because people can charge a significant amount for the services rendered rather than the software itself. If someone wants to buy a web server you can install Apache on a box and sell it to them. And the software is developed because people need a feature that doesn't yet exist and are thus willing to pay a developer to do the work. The work is non-trivial so most people can't do it themselves and therefore pay for it.
This really does not apply to the music industry - what service are you going to charge for? CD duplication? Anyone can do that for pennies.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
distribution? its called the internet. getting your name out there? again, on the internet, if your music doesnt suck, itll get noticed.
That's an article of faith not an established pattern. Look at the one thing that has worked, Apple's iTunes store. Partnered with big media and included DRM, and it became wildly successful. It's nice that they are dropping DRM now.
In reality the internet offers you more access to fans but you also have more competition, they cancel out to a large degree. The band that parters/sells out to big media/PR will dominate regardless of whether distribution is physical or digital. Those that do-it-themselves will be pretty much like the bands on the college circuit.
I dunno... Kiss tends, from what I understand, to make more money from Kiss Nation at live shows, as well as their copious amounts of merchendising (action figures, comic books, video games, pinball machines, etc.) Especially considering that their albums are, in general, crap.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
no not really, i think your music is ass.
I doubt simmons attempting to critique and one is going to sting much.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
You are correct, with the assumption that all musicians want to make a huge name for themselves and want lots of money.
No, that is not what I say. Replace "all" with "plenty of". There are plenty of musicians who want the fame and money and in partnership with big money/media they dominate popular music and commercial sales.
However, there are plenty of musicians that do not want to be as big as Radiohead or KISS, nor do they desire the same amount of wealth. This means that the internet model works perfectly fine for them.
The internet model will work about as well as the college tour model. Internet advocates tend to only see half the picture, the reaching the fans half. What they fail to see is the competition half, all the other bands trying to reach the same fans. Instead of competing on the local college circuit bands going the internet route will have to compete globally. Greater reach and greater competition will cancel each other out to a large degree.
I'm not against copyrights in general. Just the current version of system is bad. I'm all for 14 year term for all copyrights.
Furthermore, I thought that copyright should not be sellable - it should always belong to the author, who could then license copies for money.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
It's business that ruined music, Period. I don't think Britney Spears would even have one album if talent were the model for music today.
Dude, all your goodies cost less than 5% of your taxes, the rest 35%+ goes direct to the suits that run the banks!
ie, your still paying for WW1 and WW2.
Now check inflation from 1913....
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
So Gene Simmons performs music that glorifies devil worship (God Of Thunder), substance abuse (Cold Gin), and adultery (Lick It Up) but doesn't like it when kids "steal his music"?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
This from the man who has put the KISS logo on every item he possibly can. And who has also brought you about 40 farewell tours.
There was also the Psycho Circus comic books, related to the album/movie/whatever it was.
And then there is the atrocity of a B movie called "Kiss Meets the Pahntom of the Park"...
He should fade to obscurity and die a pauper from malnutrition like a real musician.
a) The music industry has itself to blame for overcharging. b) When I was a wee lad, we used to use tape cassettes to record of the radio AND copy out buddies original cassettes or vinyl. HOWEVER, and this is the important bit and the cruz of it all, someone had to pay for the original if it was not recorded off the radio (where the DJ would often talk over the intro and/or ending) so everything worked out ok really. Just like people BUY books and lend or give them to friends and family. Greed has and always will be the downfall of any entity. Even Apple's greed is going to hurt their sales of the iPhone in Europe.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Your revolution is never coming.
Great response and right on the money! I say this even though I'm one of those wannabe hippies, grew up in the 60's, listened to my older sister's albums in junior high and high school, hit college in the 70's and hated the contemporary music of my time! Disco was the end of the world as I saw it.
Not in this country, anyway.
Yeah, we were completely wrong to think the USA had a future of peace and freedom and equality for every citizen. Turns out america really is a racist and imperialist country, this new century is much more true to our heritage.
Darn that different world.
Typical, I write a great piece, but because I have been down the pub, it's full of typsos! Sorry folks! I'm not as think as you drunk I am !
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Garbage picked up twice a week! Streets swept!
The city bus rolls around predictably for out convenience...
My nation's standards of living are pretty fucking awesome, I just walked to the fridge to get some frikkin' milk and honey for my coffee, my feet warm on a cold autumn day: It's like I'm living in the promised land of legends! I dunno about you, but I buy water (and the gas to heat it with) directly with a portion of my paycheck AFTER taxes have already been taken out; same deal for garbage service and bus rides (though I wouldn't be surprised if the latter was tax-subsidised as well). I also pay for my milk and my honey and my tea (not a coffee person myself), and the gas that heats my house, and the house itself (well OK, I pay somebody else for the privilege of temporarily living in his house, which I'm not so happy about, but that's another rant).
You're right that times are pretty nice for us in the modern world; but don't give the government credit for all that. A lot of the things you praise are paid for voluntarily by peoples' hard-earned dollars completely apart from money taken by force as taxes; and while some of the tax money does go to fund some nice projects as well, I'm not entirely convinced that people wouldn't pay for such things voluntarily, if faced with the harsh alternatives. Just as when kids grow up and move out on their own they learn to voluntarily do all the chores they used to be coerced into doing at home, simply because having a filthy stinking house with dirty dishes and laundry piling up isn't very pleasant, I think that society, if "kicked out of the house" so to speak, and no longer under the "parental" supervision and care of the government, might grow up and learn to take care of itself. Then again, when kids really mature to that point, they usually move out voluntarily... so maybe the fact that so many people still support paternalistic governance is evidence that we, on average, aren't ready for independence yet.
Of course, even given that, there's the further problem that the "parents" we've got are all just as much "children" as the rest of us, so really any "parenting" going on will be of the "hey you seem smart, can you help me with my homework?" type (yeah right), or the "yes sir mister bully sir whatever you say sir please don't hurt me" type.
(Please note I'm not meaning to agree with the "you'll be a conservative when you grow up" notion of the quote a couple levels up. I don't consider myself a conservative at all. I am an anarchist; or a "libertarian socialist" if you can wrap your head around that turn of phrase).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
when the artist only gets about $1?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
But what have YOU published?
Its a question of advancing the cause, not of self-aggrandizement.
I was publishing back when it was virtually unknown. Now with the rise of Linux and the self publication model, you surely have done something, anything, to get some recognition.
After all, it is a reputation based world now..
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
ObRant: liberal and conservative are not antonyms, "conservatives" are in many ways more liberal than "progressives" who in turn are in many ways more authoritarian than "conservatives" (though as I see it both the "left" and the "right" are really incoherent mixes of liberty and authority). A true liberal is anyone anti-authority; a true conservative is anyone happy with the way things are now (and as such "conservative" is a temporally relative term; today's progressives may be tomorrow's conservatives, if the win the battle today). A better term to pair with liberal or libertarian would be "social" or egalitarian, though I'd argue even those aren't rightly opposed to one another but two separate axes of orthogonal but interdependent concerns (see "libertarian socialism" and most of the anarchist movement). But "conservative" and "progressive" are really the oddballs of political terminology, because they don't rightly pick out any particular political stance but generic support for "the way things are" (at least right here and now) or "the way things should be" (but what way is that, exactly?).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
instead of a sad moniker of the bubonic plague, which happened long ago to people who couldn't possibly have known any better, right?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This quote alone shows his lack of understanding, perhaps lack of intelligence and definite misunderstanding of finance. He may be a fairly good businessman or he's just lucky he's got other people to handle his affairs. But he obviously knows very little about the cost of things. Let's examine the issue, shall we?
Okay, let's say that it costs about $10 a ton to process ore-bearing rock, and your intent is to make a profit of at least $2 a ton. If you can extract, say, 6 pounds of copper per ton (which I think is about right), and you can wholesale it out at $2 a pound and make a profit. But if you have to process 40 tons or ore to get enough gold to make one ounce, then you have to charge around $400 an ounce (or whatever gold costs now) when dividing up costs between the two ores. Simmons probably thinks gold grows on trees, I'd be surprised if he even knows that people mine it like coal or copper. Or I wonder if he'd realize that because on 40 tons of ore they can get, say, 2880 ounces of copper (troy ounces: 12 ounces per pound) and one ounce of gold, then gold should, on the basis of scarcity, be 2880 times as expensive as one ounce of copper. Since, in our example, copper costs about 16c an ounce, an ounce of gold would then cost $480.00. Or whatever the numbers are, you can probably get the idea from what I've just said. Gold is much more scarce than copper in ore-bearing rock, thus it costs a lot more.
Now, I don't know whether his line There's no real use for it meant no use for gold, or he, in effect, is saying there is no reason gold should be so expensive. Obviously the second reason is wrong, and as for the first, there's no use for gold except fillings, electrical components, anti-corrosive plating in thousands of applications from marine connections to flatware, and a store of wealth. Yeah, I guess there really isn't any use for gold or any reason it's expensive. No reason at all.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The guy who'd merchandise his own mother, not for a buck. It's gotta be at least $100. All he understands is "you have to give me money". Economics? That's for lesser beings! (Ace? Paul? Peter? You wanna deal with economics?)
Note: I'm not saying that the man making a buck (or even a lot of bucks) is bad. I'm just saying his understanding of reality beyond "Gene Make Money!" is somewhat skewed...at best.
Honestly, the music industry killed the music industry.
What? It had lots of help? Sure!
Arbitron and other market studies that lead them into decade-long stretches of canned acts because of "trends".
The recording industry for narrowing down opinions of music that "matters" to what some suit-monkey with a big desk thinks (and I use the term most loosely) might sell (and we're back to Arbitron). Not to mention the fact that their IDEAL model of how things SHOULD be would have you paying every single time you heard the song (not just every time you wanted to hear it).
There are some people who've paid for the same content up to SEVEN TIMES (Record, 8-Track, cassette, CD, DVD, digital audio in expiring format #1, digital audio in expiring format #2). And that's for old stuff.
What about the new stuff? Crap, crap, and more formulaic crap with smidgens of decent content few and far between, but you practically have to buy an artist/group's entire fucking catalog just to get what matters!
Fuck, the movie industry learned a long time ago that 2-3 sequels is about all a franchise can handle.
What makes the music industry think that "Oops I Did It Yet Again For The Umpteenth Time, Series 12, Installmment 5, Printing 2 (Sanitized by censors for censors)" is going to sell?
I don't begrudge anyone the right to make a ridiculously good living. But if you're selling fertilizer, I'm not a farmer. So don't expect me to buy.
And no, you're NOT going to sue me into buying your crap. If I'm not going to download it from a file sharing network, I'm not going to buy it either.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Helluvan actress.
I was there. I lived it. KISS or more accurately, their A&R people, hijacked the makeup and special effects from Alice Cooper but always SUCKED in comparison! They're nothing more than constructs of the music industry.
Don't believe me? Just compare the songs between the two bands.
Kiss has always been a pathetic joke.
Anyone remember the stupid "Love Gun" paper doll toy?
medicaid, medicare and the VA examples of healthcare that functions well?
Examples like these are why many of us OPPOSE any more big government adventures into healthcare.
There's nothing like a military medical facility to give you a proper appreciation for the market driven alternative.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Gene Simmons doesn't get it. His beloved music industry (the labels) forgot that marketplaces are like living systems, not fossils frozen in amber. Marketplaces ebb and flow, they adapt and evolve because they must to remain responsive the the needs and preferences of those who come to them, or as the case may be, go to those who might want something.
The music industry forgot this essential reality: it is they who needed to adapt to the marketplace, not the marketplace that needed to adapt to them. When they could easily control all aspects of of their product, they could define what the marketplace would be and who could enter to participated in the commerce. The Internet has basically freed the marketplace and allowed it to resume its natural evolution. The music industry's rigid business model has collapsed like a building made of toothpicks because its architects failed to heed reality.
Now they weep and mourn. I hear Mary Hopkins in the background singing their lament, "Those Were the Days." I hear them in their cocktail lounges, perhaps recounting "We'll No More Go A-Roving..." Poor Gene Simmons and his record label mourners, poor corporate lotus eaters forced to see the squalor just beyond the bubble of their dreams. He's like Mistah Kurtz. "He dead. A penny for the old boy."
No kidding. Couldn't say it any more clearly. Keep the government out of our lives. Why do people think governments always have their best interest in mind? How are they any less corrupt than anybody else? AND, when a government is corrupt, there's nothing we can do about it. When private citizens or companies are corrupt, people go to jail.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
LoL I got this story and the story about the translucent-headed sucking dinosaur mixed up at first. Kids, let Gene Simmons be a poster boy for what happens when you smoke too much crack.
Helping people isn't enough of an incentive for making new drugs? Saving lives isn't enough of an incentive? That's pretty fucked up.
I think people would continue to create new drugs without profit motives, because money is less important than human survival and love.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Helping people isn't enough of an incentive for making new drugs? Saving lives isn't enough of an incentive? That's pretty fucked up.
When you look around for a savings account to invest your money in, do you look for the one with the highest interest rate or the one with a big fat 0%?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
As someone who been inside the health care industry for the last 20 years I can assure you that there is a horrendous percentage of this money spent on things that have no real direct relationship with the delivery of medical care. I happen to work at one of the better managed organizations both from a medical and business view, but it is the exception.
Probably nearly a third of your health care costs go toward bloated administrative costs. How medical care professionals and institutions get paid is a quagmire of private and government plans that requires multiple, confusing and usually duplicated efforts and paperwork. While dealing with the bureaucracy of government programs is indeed a hassle the challenges are often trivial when compared to private insurers that quite frankly do their best to not pay their obligations at all if possible and have evolved slow pay into an art. Then there is the issue of top level management staffing levels and compensation which are both often obscene, all the while lower level managers and staff are run dangerously lean in both salary and staffing levels. The salaries of the insurance executives and staff figure into this in the same manner as far as you and I are concerned even if from the opposite perspective industry-wise.
The next largest black hole involves marketing and the associated 'appearance' issues. Sadly more often that not an organization is bleed pale by advertising and cosmetic 'improvements' to facilities and grounds. Local media is often a player in this. If anything does go wrong, and of course it does far too often what with the typical low staffing levels and money diverted for real needs, then the local media will hound the institution relentlessly. Subsequently or sometimes concurrently the other hand of the media is in the organizations pocket for 'image recovery' advertising.
As for direct medical costs, the areas of emergency care, medical imaging, cancer treatment and surgery often though of as the 'expensive part' of the equation is dwarfed by long term care costs. I guess it is politically incorrect to point out that this more often than not involves a patient who has passed the average lifespan. Many families of of average means or less will see their entire inheritance siphoned away in grandpas or grannies last two months, or maybe weeks, of life.
Finally another huge issue that is a bit harder to quantify with numbers but I believe has the largest impact of all. There is a reason why health care organizations often find themselves in highly litigious circumstances. Simply put the medical care establishment due to some of the reasons stated above along with other equally inexcusable reasons every year manage to kill more people that auto accidents, firearms, and illegal drugs combined. These are deaths caused by misdiagnoses, medication mistakes, equipment failures, simple negligence and the biggest of all infection control failures.
There is a lot of work to be done before we can expect to have reasonable quality health care at a reasonable cost. Many of the entrenched players such as the insurance, medical prosthesis and drug industries have no reason to want change in their part of the camp. With the system so broken medical care professionals, administrators and support staffing are nearly hopelessly beleaguered in most cases where they try to improve things. Every year now for what seems like forever I hear 'you have to work smarter and do more with less' and we do pretty good at it, but the costs keep going up anyway. Hey but aren't those grounds pretty, my look at those Italian marble floors, oohhh you just gotta see the granite fountain in the patrons garden and did you see that new TV spot with Dr so and so....
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Oh as for the topic of the article, screw Gene Simmons, I say boycott anything he has ever done or will ever do, like any of it was worth listening to anyway.
By that I mean plenty of music groups online now sell songs 1.99 or thereabouts without itunes. Radiohead made a legitimate gamble that if they put their stuff up for "whatever you want" they would get purchases from people who don't necessarily like their music, but like the statement their action makes, however with proven outlets like itunes there is no reason to suspect that such a system wouldn't be profitable or viable if not in the same stupifyingly successful way record sales used to be.
The primary problem is the level of money people want for what they do and what people want to spend at any given time. I don't have any of this guys music because it really is all terrible, and if his group didn't do the makeup and had all of their fantastical performances then he would never have gotten the money to be an asshole to begin with. Were it not for free radio music letting people hear Kiss no one would have showed up anyway. Oh, also, do you know what musicians did before the recording industry? I don't but I can count on one hand the bands I know before the 50s.
So a half century, tops, of the music industry, and now bands and music will die because people want MUSIC and not an experience that involves waiting for crap, in a crap format that leads them to a crap performance. Oh yes, lets sue the college kids for copying music! However when a rock star gets caught doing every kind of illegal drug known to pharmacology lets check him in to a five start hotel so he can get sober long enough for milking part of his career where people by his shit because they hope it as good as his one time hit.
The economy sucks right now in the states, people are not overly happy, and while this normally can be a boon to the entertainment industry, it really depends on what they are selling and how they are selling it. Just like Japan's population decline might not be a bad thing because it is possible that many people should live on one island, it might not be a bad thing for musicians to get paid something reasonable so they save it and down blow it all before the end of their careers. Have you ever seen a VH1 special about poison? I don't know any of their songs but the whole cast of characters strikes me as the most angsty group of old codgers I have ever seen with an entitlement boner. Some of their sentiments could be taken as death threats towards kurt cobain, and it is a pitty no one is giving them shit for it.
'The system in question is our very own Veterans Health Administration,
whose success story is one of the
best-kept secrets in the American policy debate.
In the 1980's and early 1990's, says an article in The American Journal of
Managed Care, the V.H.A. ''had a tarnished reputation of bureaucracy,
inefficiency and mediocre care.'' But reforms beginning in the mid-1990's
transformed the system, and ''the V.A.'s success in improving quality, safety
and value,'' the article says, ''have allowed it to emerge as an increasingly
recognized leader in health care.''
Last year customer satisfaction with the veterans' health system, as measured by
an annual survey conducted by the National Quality Research Center, exceeded
that for private health care for the sixth year in a row. This high level of
quality (which is also verified by objective measures of performance) was
achieved without big budget increases. In fact, the veterans' system has managed
to avoid much of the huge cost surge that has plagued the rest of U.S. medicine.'
By PAUL KRUGMAN
27 January 2006
The New York Times
I would not assume either the government or private corporation has my interests at heart. Only I can advocate for that. Contrary to your example, privatization does not hold down corruption. The NYC transit system used to be operated by many independent companies. The whole set up was scrapped and merged into 1 singlt MTA precisely BECAUSE of rampant corruption and payoffs. Thus far, people complain about the fares, but I hear no accusation of corruption within the MTA.
Would you be happier if all US military activities are subcontracted to Blackwater?
I support a case by case analysis of whether a function is better handled via private entities of public one. Prejudgement is nonoptimal, IMHO.
Would you be happier if all US military activities are subcontracted to Blackwater?
I support a case by case analysis of whether a function is better handled via private entities of public one. Prejudgement is nonoptimal, IMHO. I absolutely agree with you, but the one thing about a private company is that if there is corruption, they can be fired. The government (aka public interest) cannot be fired. The government can monitor and fire a company that becomes corrupt. If the government is corrupt at it's core, electing new officials won't necessarily take care of the problem.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.