Gene Simmons on file sharers? Sue them off the face of the planet

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]

[Andrew @ Nov 15th 2007 11:25AM]

More music dinosaurs talking out their asses.

[jeff @ Nov 15th 2007 11:36AM]

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

[GDUB @ Nov 15th 2007 11:49AM]

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.

[Philometalist @ Nov 15th 2007 12:00PM]

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.

[Ray-- @ Nov 15th 2007 12:00PM]

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...

[dave @ Nov 15th 2007 12:02PM]

@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.

[kevjohn @ Nov 15th 2007 12:08PM]

"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!

[68newyorker @ Nov 15th 2007 12:29PM]

@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.

[mikey @ Nov 15th 2007 12:45PM]

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.

[PDubNYC @ Nov 15th 2007 12:53PM]

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.

[dpk @ Nov 15th 2007 1:08PM]

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.

[Sean McGee @ Nov 15th 2007 1:20PM]

@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.

[KnightRider @ Nov 15th 2007 2:00PM]

I paid $7 to radiohead album; just to encourage and support their idea even though I dont listen to their songs.

[loci @ Nov 15th 2007 2:31PM]

who is he?

[Diceburna @ Nov 16th 2007 12:01AM]

@ 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."

[ChillyWilly @ Nov 16th 2007 12:38PM]

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.

[tweak @ Nov 15th 2007 11:26AM]

"We don't know Gene, but we can't wait to download your new record."

Amen.

[undeadbydawn @ Nov 15th 2007 12:07PM]

yeah, but why the hell would you want to?

[Nobar King @ Nov 15th 2007 11:30AM]

He's just angry because no one wants his tired old music anymore.

[Azayzel @ Nov 15th 2007 12:57PM]

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)!

[Grant @ Nov 15th 2007 1:07PM]

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.

[poly @ Nov 15th 2007 11:30AM]

no-ones even gonna download any of his records, he will have start paying people to take them

[Bruno @ Nov 15th 2007 11:31AM]

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.

[James Hare @ Nov 15th 2007 11:32AM]

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.

[Bjorn @ Nov 15th 2007 11:54AM]

Just how would someone downloading music without paying for it constitute a "customer"

[Liam @ Nov 15th 2007 11:59AM]

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?).

[moo083 @ Nov 15th 2007 12:05PM]

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.

[Chicksta @ Nov 15th 2007 12:07PM]

@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.

[murray @ Nov 15th 2007 12:56PM]

"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.

[Bjorn @ Nov 15th 2007 1:57PM]

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.

[brokenkeyboard @ Nov 15th 2007 3:35PM]

@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.

[Garth @ Nov 15th 2007 7:11PM]

@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.

[MasterFu @ Nov 16th 2007 9:52PM]

@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!

[Dias @ Nov 15th 2007 11:35AM]

Lol

[zebcarlson2007 @ Nov 15th 2007 11:35AM]

That guy is such a loser. He has no talent, Kiss sucked! He wishes he was as talented as Thom Yorke or Trent Reznor.

[Eric @ Nov 15th 2007 1:07PM]

Kiss puts on a much better show than Nine Inch Nails, I have been to both shows and Kiss is better.

[zebcarlson2007 @ Nov 15th 2007 1:43PM]

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.

[Jeff @ Nov 15th 2007 1:53PM]

"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.

[James @ Nov 16th 2007 5:25AM]

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).

[Eric @ Nov 16th 2007 3:41PM]

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...

[Andrew @ Nov 15th 2007 11:35AM]

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.

[Spyvie @ Nov 15th 2007 11:46AM]

Seems pretty clear he sold his soul a long time ago

[Rob Gross @ Nov 15th 2007 11:36AM]

Just another dusty has-been. Go back to your bar cords and busch beer.

[McGinley @ Nov 15th 2007 12:41PM]

Gene Simmons played bass.

[Jon @ Nov 15th 2007 11:36AM]

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?

[FrankTheCrank @ Nov 15th 2007 11:36AM]

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!

[zebcarlson2007 @ Nov 15th 2007 11:38AM]

LOL

[Jon @ Nov 15th 2007 11:39AM]

Most bands wanted to be the Beatles, KISS wanted to be Coka-Cola.

::can't believe I forgot that part::

[Ben @ Nov 15th 2007 11:39AM]

That man does not need anymore of ANYONES music. Nor do half of the over paid performers in this world. DOWNLOAD EVERYTHING!!!!

[Ben @ Nov 15th 2007 11:40AM]

Damn it, I meant money, not music...