Kiss front man Gene Simmons, makeup-wearing progenitor of high-brow fare such as
Rock And Roll All Nite,
Plaster Caster, and
Love Gun, as well as star of the intellectual gem
Gene Simmons Family Jewels has a message for file sharing aficionados out there: you deserve to be sued. Or, as Gene subtly puts it to Billboard while discussing college student's downloading habits, "Every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth." When asked about Radiohead and Trent Reznor's recent forays into new online distribution methods, our man Simmons retorts, "I open a store and say 'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?" We don't know Gene, but we can't wait to download your new record.
[Via
Digg]
posted Nov 15th 2007 11:21AM
More music dinosaurs talking out their asses.
Well, do you think you should just take music you didn't pay for and just give it away to other people?
I know some people like to justify music piracy as if they are doing a great service to the artist by supposedly "giving them tons of free exposure", but that isnt your call to make nor should you force these guys to believe in it. Im not some RIAA cheerleader, but I also dont feel sorry for the "kids" that get caught doing what they know is illegal and being "sued off the face of the Earth as a result".
Simmons is free to set the price for his work as he see fit. If you dont like the price, dont buy it
Jeasus the music sucks why would i want to buy it let alone steal it.
Tell him to reel that thing he calls a tongue in and shut his trap.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
And I think all illegal drug users should be banned from making public statements.... and be required to give away their crap music for free...
@Jeff "Simmons is free to set the price for his work as he see fit. If you dont like the price, dont buy it"
But that's just the point isn't it. People don't like the price, so they're not buying it, they're downloading it.
"Well, do you think you should just take music you didn't pay for and just give it away to other people?"
After reading Gene's take on things, NOW I do!! Let's rob this a-hole back to skid row!
@Dave
Oh come on, we can argue about what a massive dinosaur RIAA and guys like Gene Simmons are all day long and I'd agree with you. But saying I don't like the price so I'm going to download it for free really is a lot like saying you don't like the price of a Cadillac so you're going to steal it instead of buying the used Geo you can afford. Just go to FYE (or Rasputins. Woot!) and stop excusing theft.
Gene Simmons does have the right to distribute his "music" as he sees fit. We have the right to say "You suck, your music sucks. Piss off", not buy it, then pay Radiohead to support the model we like. That's it.
That's beside the point of the RIAA acting like a police force (should be illegal), the DMCA's ridiculous regulations (should be repealed) and the whole business of the gross amount of access that businesses and PACs have to government (should be a seperation of business and state in the same manner and for the same reasons that there should be a seperation of church and state). This asinine way of doing business does not justify theft. Although it may eventually justify revolution if it doesn't cease.
the pay what it's worth system works as a buisness model for radiohead. The reason being that radiohead, unlike kiss, aren't total shite.
ummm Ray, Gene Simmons never used drugs. Not sure what the hell your comment has to do with anything anyway.
that said, he sounds like as big a jerk off as Ted Nugent.
68newyorker:
Actually, it's more like: I don't like the price of the music, so I'll just borrow it from a friend and listen to it. Comparing it to physical theft does not make sense.
@68newyorker:
Don't equate theft with copyright violation. Anyhow, downloading music isn't even a copyright violation, it's the re-distribution of it that's against the law.
I paid $7 to radiohead album; just to encourage and support their idea even though I dont listen to their songs.
who is he?
@ Philometalist
These business execs know this and are greeting these new guards with heavy resistance. Little do they know that they are only prolonging the inevitable. Only those artists that truly in it for the music will have a place in this new digital era.
“Music is an art form consisting of sound and silence expressed through time” and what is art "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."
Gene is, first and foremost a business guy. KISS is a marketing machine. Do I like KISS music? Yes, I do (not all of it, but the older stuff is still cool). But as well-versed as Gene is at marketing the sh!t out of KISS merchandise, he needs to see that there is more than one medium that music can be sold as.
I will at least give them this - at least you can buy their songs and albums on iTunes and the other digital music stores (unless it was their record company that had a major say so, which I seriously doubt given Gene's control over everything he's created and managed).
His comments to sue the users is just plain him thinking too limited. C'mon Gene... get with the new age.
"We don't know Gene, but we can't wait to download your new record."
Amen.
yeah, but why the hell would you want to?
He's just angry because no one wants his tired old music anymore.
Here, here! I totally agree. If he had new music and people liked it then they'd buy it to show appreciation. Unfortunately, there's nothing new and who wants to keep upgrading their libraries with new formats? He's just nervous he might miss a cent or two in "potential" sales.
BTW Any old actor/singer that ends up on VH1 has pretty much resigned themselves to the end of their career (actually it already happened or they wouldn't have considered it or been asked)!
seriously.
and his statements just prove how much of a dinosaur he is.
computer un-savvy, internet ignorant, and obviously not open to unconventional business models.... the same ones which usually start to become standards after seeing great success.
no-ones even gonna download any of his records, he will have start paying people to take them
The customer ALWAYS pays what they want at retail.
It's the customer who decides whether or not to make the purchase at the price being asked. Yes, the first comment is loaded, because in most situations you only have the choice to buy or not to buy at an individual retail location. But the choice is an important one that determines in large part the pricing of goods in the first place.
With most products, there is always someone elsewhere selling at a price or with conditions that one will find more attractive. In the case of music there are quite a number of choices out there, including CD purchases from eBay, music clubs, etc... These bring down the per track costs significantly for anyone willing to rip their own.
What is going to be interesting is the bottom line. How much will artists see from self-publishing at low market rates versus what they're paid in sales royalties by labels.
Who told all these music execs and musicians that it made good business sense to insult and attack their customers?
Now I feel bad that I bought an album on the iTunes mobile store yesterday while sitting at the bar. It was pretty cool from a "I'm downloading an album and drinking a beer at a bar at the same time" standpoint, but in doing so I did more to perpetuate the system that has produced such "musical" acts as Kiss and enriched such stand-up guys as Gene Simmons.
I mean, what kind of industry actively declares war on its customers? I just don't get it.
Just how would someone downloading music without paying for it constitute a "customer"
Exactly. The thing is, filesharing is a fact of life now. By suggesting more and more measures to crack down on this activity, all you really end up doing is hampering the honest consumers. A painfully simple example of this is how I can't upload music from my iPod to my computer. I'm not a pirate, I just bought a new laptop and I want my music on it, how is that so difficult?
DRM is the same; it seems like a punishment for the very same people who are actually prepared to pay for music online. It removes value. I mean, they're the only people who are prepared to jump through the RIAA's hoops to buy music online, and yet they're given no promise of interoperability or future-proofing (will people still be using WMA or AAC in ten years?).
Bjorn: Because those pirates are potential customers. I used to pirate music. Until iTunes came out. Then I only pirated music when it wasn't available there. Now, I haven't pirated music in a while. There has even been time when I purchased music I already had partly to get a higher quality copy, and partly so I could show support for the artist. Of course, I only buy music to support the artist in certain instances, like Barenaked Ladies I support, but I know that they make all the money from their CD because they have their own label.
There is a lot more to the music industry than pirates and customers. There is a lot of grey area. So when you attack the pirates, you are attacking a lot of people who are in that grey area, who are still supporting the industry, but not being a blind follower. The RIAA needs these grey area folk, even if the thought of them has not crossed their heads.
@Liam: "given no promise of interoperability or future-proofing" - um, like the promise that was given when people bought LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes, etc.? I don't think buying something for 10-15 bucks really entitles you to have any sort of guarantee that there won't be something 'better' to convert to later. That's how it works.
"I mean, what kind of industry actively declares war on its customers? I just don't get it."
What you don't get is that he wasn't talking about his customers. He was talking about thieves who don't pay for music. And I assure you, those people who do pay for all the music they own, appreciate his sentiments.
There's not a lot of grey, really. When you pay, you are a customer, when you don't, you're not. I agree that it makes sense for copyright-holders to make it attractive to pay, BUT: this does not make it ok to pirate. Too many whiny "file-sharers" seem to think they have a god-given right to recordings but that they only condescend to pay for it under certain circumstances, defined solely by themselves. It's like taking candy from little kids: it can be easy, convenient and inexpensive, but that doesn't make it right.
@bjorn
"It's like taking candy from little kids"
really, its more like taking candy from monopolistic, billion-dollar candy-cartels, which think that they have a god-given right to charge their monopoly rates forever, while they haven't even bothered to come up with any new, innovative candy in 40 years, and on top of it they insult you every time they get a chance.
Is it morally justified? That depends on your moral code. But either way, its pretty clear: these assholes are whats wrong with the music industry, not bit-torrent.
@brokenkeyboard:
"these assholes (record companies) are whats wrong with the music industry, not bit-torrent."
brokenkeyboard = "whiny "file-sharers" seem to think they have a god-given right to recordings" thanks Bjorn :)
If the simple mechanisms that allow illegal downloadeds (bit-torrent etc...) didn't exist you would either be paying for music or not have it.
@Garth:
Your use of quotation marks is abhorrent. Learn how to use "start quotes" and "end quotes" correctly. They're always used in pairs. Never have only 3 quote marks in a single sentence. Unless you need to tell someone the following: A quote mark looks like this " " ". Lol. That's like telling someone, "Look in the following parentheses to see what a start and end parenthesis look like: (())" LOL!
Just another dusty has-been. Go back to your bar cords and busch beer.
Gene Simmons played bass.
Lol
That guy is such a loser. He has no talent, Kiss sucked! He wishes he was as talented as Thom Yorke or Trent Reznor.
Kiss puts on a much better show than Nine Inch Nails, I have been to both shows and Kiss is better.
Well, being from the 90's and being a NIN fan I find that hard to believe. But I havent seen either one of them live (in person) so I cant say. But im not saying who is better live, I was saying who is more talented and who is more intelligent.
I dont think anyone will argue that Trent Reznor is a smarter, all-around better person than Gene Simmons.
Now, I am a hardcore radiohead fan. Kiss dosent deserve to lick the ground they walk on. Radiohead is one of the best bands of the 20th century.
"Well, being from the 90's and being a NIN fan I find that hard to believe. But I havent seen either one of them live (in person) so I cant say. But im not saying who is better live, I was saying who is more talented and who is more intelligent."
And as both a musician and a child of the 70's, I'm here to tell you that "who is better live" is a direct result of talent. And I have also seen both KISS and NIN, and KISS is by far the better show.
The whole thing with playing live is that it's the real you, without a net. No studio tricks are gonna back you up. If a band sucks live, they suck, period. And NIN sucks live.
I am going to have to disagree with you here. Live performance today is not the same as it was in the 70s where you were the live act. There are smaller bands / performers that still prove this theory true, but most big acts like Kiss have the same assortment of studio equipment (even blatant lip syncing capability) that you would find on their overly polished album.
Wonderful examples of this are any of the pop genre acts (Brittney, J.Lo, etc.) where you know its basically about performance and not the actual music.
Granted, I have NOT been to a KISS or NIN concert, so I am not claiming either of them put the "show" over the actual music being played to this extent, I am saying that the "slickness" of a live performance, for the most part, has changed from the 70s for big names (KISS being a very big name) and comparing the talent levels of musicians in a live setting can only be done in certain situations (acoustic sets, small performances where you could logically rule out large amounts of sound altering equipment).
Gene speakes 5 languages, used to be an elementary school teacher, and turned Kiss into a marketing machine that made him super rich - Trent was a computer engineering student that tapped into a huge well of gen-X teen angst. Both are smart guys, not everyone you dislike is automatically an idiot...
gene is only ever out to make a buck...i've watched his show and it's all about him finding a way to make money. he'd sell his soul if he got a pretty penny out of it.
Seems pretty clear he sold his soul a long time ago
Well it's a good thing I would never even consider downloading KISS (not that I would do such a thing anyway) I'd really hate to have my face sued off.
I didn't pay Radiohead anything, but went nback afterwards and "bought" the album for 5 pounds.
I paid $5 right off for the new Saul Williams album, so I don't know Gene, how much do you make per unit sold? $0.30, maybe $0.40?
He has a right to an opinion. Just like I do.
Gene your a scummy dude. Enjoy it while it lasts because you won't be able to take it with you when you die. Hope your venereal disease melts your bullocks off. You pruney old bastard!
LOL
Most bands wanted to be the Beatles, KISS wanted to be Coka-Cola.
::can't believe I forgot that part::
That man does not need anymore of ANYONES music. Nor do half of the over paid performers in this world. DOWNLOAD EVERYTHING!!!!
Damn it, I meant money, not music...
I second that .....
I hope this man will read this post (if he knows how to do it!) and understand how much he's old and out of the scene.
Time to put the makeup off man, time to leave...
Actually, he looks better with it on. Trust me.
way to support your fans gene.
What everyone doesn't realize is that these artists don't make the bulk of their money with their stupid albums. They make most of their money from their tours/shows and their endorsements. Whenever an album is sold, most of the money goes to the production compabies who are assholes that don't deserve money anyway. I like the bands that can produce themselves. Shows some all around musical talent, too. Annoying producers and bands like Metallica that complain about their music being downloaded need to find a new career or stop whining.
way to support your fans gene
"'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?"
Perhaps the music is just more important than the "business" Gene.
Nah! That's crazy talk!
The problem with the NIN/Radiohead model isn't the pricing structure; it's the fact that these are known/recognized bands *because* they had labels behind them to get them there. And didn't Trent have a song about biting the hand that feeds? Hmm. There are countless thousands of bands out there who wouldn't be on every news site around if they did the same thing.
But as far as the business model for the music industry goes, everyone is chasing their tails. Suing people just gives people an 'us vs. them' complex. Somehow the greed to take music and have it without paying for it is okay, but the greed to profit off of it isn't. If you're against greedy executives, then stop buying everything, because behind every single product you buy is someone trying to make money from it. The horror.
'Creep' became successful as an accident, almost; it garned relative success in Israeli radio, where somehow it found its way onto independent(!) college radio in the US, the springboard from which it became a hit. And well, that's the song that put Radiohead on the map commercially, if not artistically.
With the internet, no-one needs a record label anymore. Simple as.
All of Trent Reznors work has been produced under his own label, Nothing records. His first CD, Pretty Hate Machine sold amazingly well on word of mouth and friend-to-friend CD swapping. It had bugger all to do with major label backup, which he only got after a further 2 eps. Downward Spiral was his first major label release, if I remember rightly.
If not feel free to correct me.
"Somehow the greed to take music and have it without paying for it is okay, but the greed to profit off of it isn't."
Well said...
And to the folks who try to rationalize their theft, man up! If you are going to do it, don't rationalize it. Just admit to yourself that want something but don't want to pay for it, so you take it.
I hear a lot of "the music is crap... it's about music, not money... it's too expensive... they have enough money as it is... the recordable cassette didn't destroy music, neither will this... etc" Bottom line... It's worth my time but not my money...
If your gonna do it, be a man and admit to yourself that you are stealing because it's easy, nearly risk free, and you save a bunch of money.
Oh and Gene Simmons is an ass.
/waits for his Lowest Ranked
@Liam: Lots of bands are 'discovered' via smaller radio stations, but without the label backing them, very few make it past that stage. I remember distinctly getting PR mats pushing Radiohead when that album was first released, then again when it was gaining popularity. The label did provide value for them, and did help them get off their feet. Ditto Reznor.
So who are these bands that don't have (and haven't had) labels that are successful? If it's so simple, I'd love to hear about all of them, all of the gold/platinum artists that got there by themselves. I suppose maybe, just maybe, if an artist has enough money to pay for equipment, has a relative that's a lawyer, another who's a PR agent to create and send press kits, another who's an artist to make their 'branding', another who can develop their site for them and create an e-commerce area, another who gives them a merchant account to take payments, another to do their taxes, another to manage their interviews, set up interviews, and schedule events, another to give them access to a studio (if they're not just doing it via the computer), another to get them gigs as opening acts for larger bands to get exposure, then they wouldn't need a label. But it's really naive to think that someone (no matter how talented) can 'simply' record something and sell it without any help on the business side.
@undeadbydawn: PHM was released by TVT, which had a relationship w/Wax Trax back in the day. So yes, he was on a label. Also keep in mind that Trent was not a poor artist by any means. Plus as a result of that affiliation, he made connections which got him gigs touring with larger artists as well as Lolapalooza, which is not something that's easy to do by being a 'just-Internet' band. Maybe one day that will change, but that day ain't today.
@Chris
You're right. Pirates trying to rationalize stealing music are kidding themselves. It's theft any way you look at it, as theft is currently defined by the law (although the same laws don't apply everywhere).
And as you say, I will continue to pirate music without trying to justify it because I know for a fact that:
(1) I want to; I love music so much and I know that I can't afford to buy all the music in the world that I want to listen to;
(2) Unlike physical theft, I am not monetarily hurting anyone by downloading stuff I would not have bought in the first place;
(3) I WILL go out and buy any music I find to be truly worthy of my money and support artists with what limited support my broke ass can give; during the 3 years I was an OiNK member, I easily bought 4-5 times as many CDs and paid downloads (e.g., iTunes, Beatport, etc.) as I had in the 5 years preceding it, simply because I was constantly being introduced to amazing music I had never heard before, or would never have come across had I not been a member.
(4) I will never go and download stuff I know I would buy otherwise, or, as I'd often do on OiNK, download just because I'd want to listen to it immediately (or before release) and buy the CD later.
(5) The above four combined make my actions "illegal" but not immoral as I see it.
Alright grandpa, time for bed.
Don't worry, Gene.
I don't perceive there ever being a problem of your material being illegally downloaded.
Is that Steve Ballmer under that makeup?!?!
Can someone scrub his face......
KISS is the epitome of a fan exploitation business model. It should come as no surprise that Gene Simmons is only interested in merchandising. Anyone who has actually listened to a KISS album knows if they had put half the effort into making them music as they did into selling worthless trinkets or brainless television shows they might actually be remembered for their craft instead of a lack thereof.
Radiohead and others on the other hand actually put effort into their music and make money because it is quality. The quality is reflected by the amount of money they've made off going on tour. Because of this, they can afford to offer an album where you 'pay what you want.'
Without merchandise, all of the members of KISS would be poor.
however, i cannot dispute the fact that the guy gets more ass than a toilet seat.
@muddy
That's alright. He probably carries more diseases than one, too.
"Without merchandise, all of the members of KISS would be poor."
As it stands, all the members of Kiss ARE poor, except for one. Can you guess who? :>)
Those of you who never heard of KISS, try finding some songs like Detroit Rock City, Rock'n Roll All Night, God Gave Rock'n Roll to you, I was made for lovin' you...
That music was real, not computer animated like Rap, R&B and similar s**t.
Ha,youve obviously never tried to "animate" any music on a computer.If you had,you would know that its far harder than it seems,and most classical musicians and guitarists struggle with it.
Look up Amon Tobin.He makes all his music on a computer.Bet you its better than you could make.Better than probably ANYONE could make.Sheer complexity.
lol, so basically, crap? I listen to a lot of music, and a lot of classic rock. Kiss has always sucked.
Kiss rocks cause 30 years ago you really needed to know to sing, to write a song and to play a instrument.
With the power of computer programs, today everybody can be a musician like Eminem, Britney Spears, P. Daddy, Jay Z, Brandy. It's only important to look good and/or have a story like 50 Cent...
"I...wanna download songs all night..
...and pirate everyday..."
Coming from a man who once sold canned water - yes, plain water - as the Kiss Energy drink.
my opinion of him is not improved by this statement.
I know this is a hot topic, and I probably should not say anything based on the comments already. However, someone is going to have to explain to me why it is okay to download music and/or videos without paying for it. While I do not agree with the way the industry handles distribution, I just do not see how that gives me a right to do whatever I want.
Can't be any possible explanation other than dirty file-sharers to why his music just isn't selling anymore right?
to b ad kiss just went on the never buy list. i support artists i like but ones that act like this i make a point to only download their stuff. i also stop going to concerts by those artists, since kiss doesn't tour anymore i guess in their case it doesn't matter.
"We don't know Gene, but we can't wait to download your new record."
You, sir, are a badass.
STFU Gene. You make more money on concerts than you do on CD sales.
As much as I love KISS' music, Gene never met a $$$ he didn't like.
Exhibit A: KISS casket
http://russellarch.com/2006/01/kiss-casket.html
I rest my case your honor.
Gene Simmons is the most egoistic musician out there today. He is as greedy as the Rolling Stones, with less talent though. You are disgusting Gene.
I, want to download songs all night... And listen to them at work.
I, want to download songs all night... But never KISS 'cos they suck.
Kiss should be sued for 30 years of shitty music.
Aging, irrelevant moneygrubber is befuddled by modern world, gladly makes laughingstock of self for a few bucks...this sounds familiar. Oh wait! There's a show, what's it called, "Gene Simmons Family Jewels?" Yeah, that's it.
He should stick with that show to make money, where he also sells the dignity of his family for a few pennies more, and pimps out his kids on national TV to add a couple more cents to the tally. That's gotta be more lucrative than making a fool of himself in Billboard interviews.
The last KISS concert I was at was twenty years ago, and they were already irrelevant then. Ace was the only talented one of the bunch.
Gene, sorry to disappoint you, but according to Wired, Radiohead just "netted $2,736,000 in digital sales". If they sold it in stores they probably won't make that much; this way they made good bucks which they get to keep most of it unlike all other bands selling cds, and allowed 62% of all customers received the album for free, now that's a win-win situation right there. So take that you old fool!
If we love your music we'll go to your shows which is where musicans make their money, not selling cds in walmart...I pay alot to see my favorite bands, so they better give me their music for free.
speaking of rocknroll, i think rock n' roll in America is dead, the better rock n' roll music are now coming from Europe.
His tung is brown for a reason.
And, as Bloom County fans know, Gene Simmons never had a computer.
I love it. "Gene sucks!" "Go to bed, grandpa!" "KISS sucks" blah blah blah
Seems he sucks so bad that you youngsters have to go on and on about it, eh?
I wonder if Radiohead will still be around/relevant in 30 years? (Honestly, I was surprised to hear they -were- still around....)
Kinda like Hootie & The Blowfish. EVERYONE said they sucked. Wonder who bought the 15,000,000 albums they sold.
Lighten up, you pimple-faced retards. Some day you'll mature and see that the White Stripes (is that right?) represent all that is wrong with music. Of course nobody will buy that crap - it sucks. There was a time when music was so righteous that you WANTED to buy the CD, you WANTED the jacket/liner notes. Today's music is commercial, boring, and well, sucks.
Bye now.
Looks like Gene Simmons reads Engadget after all!
Are you kidding me? Radiohead has been one of the most influencial rock bands during the last 10-15 years.
Kiss is nothing more than glam rock wrapped in face paint.
Kiss works on their image and marketing.
Radiohead works on their music.
Gene reads engadget? i doubt he owns a computer.
While I agree that a lot of current music is crap, there are groups much more talented than KISS ever was, and do it for reasons other than the mighty dollar.
That's a pretty harsh generalization.
I'm 21 years old and I the last LP I purchased cost me $64. It was a hardbound, 200-page book with 180g vinyl in the rear, Mt. Eerie, Pts 6&7. (so if you want to talk "liner notes") I hate to quantify things, but I’ve got about 400 LPs altogether, with just as many CDs and a few tapes here and there. I go to shows regularly, I average 2-3 per month while I am still in college. None of the artists I am currently interested in are a part of a major label.
I think what many people ignore is the fact that the record industry has adopted a disposable approach to music. Sure, you can get your favorite song on iTMS, Zune, Connect, Rhapsody, VCAST and a whole slew of other digital content services, but for how long will you really want to listen to that song? Many of the people who download, whether it be legally, or illegally are not interested in listening to their music for years to come.
For me, purchasing the physical album, going to a show or meeting the artist in person is comparable to eating filet minion. It is something I sit down, savor and enjoy. Afterward, I’ll think back and say, “wow, that was really good.” Conversely, downloading music is the drive-thru at McDonalds, fast, easy, convenient and in a few hours I regret my decision.
I am not alone in this sentiment, and it is unfortunate that the major labels have failed to attract other listeners like myself by producing artists who are enduring. On the upside, their failure has provided many independent artists and labels with success and a dedicated listener base.
Frank Furter, you sound like someone's dad.
ah yes - steal music b/c you don't like his opinion. music should be free! no one should be paid for their hard work!
Do YOU work for free?
yes, music should be free because shows are not, you think musicians make money off selling cds? they dont work for free, we pay big to go to see their shows and thats where they make the bucks and show some love.
The way I see this, if you are a musician you want your cd to be widely distributed so when you go tour people pay to go see you. Of course, also have to add in the factor that your music is not crap.
And i think alot of musicians/band complain about poor sales/income, but the true problem is not that people download their music for free, the problem is that their music SUCKS, simple as that.