Gene Simmons Says Sue Your Fans, Take Their Homes; So Why Hasn't He?

from the put-up-or-shut-up dept

Kiss' Gene Simmons apparently was bored of not getting enough coverage in the blogworld lately, and so he's cooked up another "controversy." He does this every year or so, making a big stink about "piracy" or new business models, and I'm pretty sure at this point that he only says this stuff because he knows people will write about it. In 2008 he claimed that Radiohead was destroying the music industry with its "pay what you want" experiment -- even though it made the band more money than all their previous releases. In 2007, he told Billboard Magazine that the labels should be suing more people:

The record industry doesn't have a f*cking clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. 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. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work."

Of course, the evidence suggests Simmons is totally wrong, but apparently he hasn't learned anything in the past three years or he doesn't care. Kiss keeps selling concert tickets at an amazing clip, so he can say whatever ridiculous thing he wants and he still makes more money. So he's basically repeated those claims from 2007 (found via Hypebot), by saying that fans should be sued until they lose their homes:

"It is a business. You have a fiduciary duty to your own butt to make sure you maximise any potential and minimise any exposure,"

He's right about that, but perhaps confused about long-term vs. short-term maximization. You can maximize revenue in the short term at the expense of long-term revenue, and one good way to do that is to smack around your fans. But that didn't stop Simmons:

Make sure your brand is protected, be litigious, sue anybody -- take their homes, their cars, DON'T LET ANYBODY CROSS THAT LINE.

These are his fans he's talking about. While he's got fans to spare, he may discover one day that suggesting bands sue their fans isn't actually a good long-term strategy.

"The music industry was asleep at the wheel and didn't have the balls to go and sue every fresh-faced, freckle-faced college kid who downloaded a clip," Simmons roared, "so now we're left with hundreds of people without jobs. I have a record company."

Not quite sure where that final non-sequitur came from (sounds sort of like "I'm on a horse.") Either way, he's confusing the record industry with the music industry. The recording industry did, in fact, try to sue every college kid who downloaded stuff. And it ended up costing them a ton of money, educating many more people about file sharing, and driving people and systems further underground. And, while all that was happening the music industry (not the recording industry) continued to grow at a pretty massive rate, despite his claims. I'm on a horse.

He illustrated these already-colourful points with a handful of stories: one about a captain who's told he has a small hole in his ship (will he cork it now, or sink before arrival to the New World?), and another about a farmer who lets a cute fox run away with an egg. The fox tells all the other foxes, who come to ravage and steal and kill all the chickens, after which point the farmer's wife divorces her witless husband and the children all hate him.

Um. Okay. Story time from Gene Simmons. I can tell stories too, except mine are actually about real people who figured out that attacking or suing your fans was a bad idea, and actually putting in place smarter business models made sense.

But here's the reason why I think Simmons is making all this up for the attention and the press. He notes that he has a record company, and he screams about the industry not having the balls to sue people. So... um... Gene... where are your thousands of lawsuits against file sharers? After all, I would imagine that KISS songs are downloaded all the time. What's with all the talk and no action? Where are all the lawsuits that drove kids out of their homes and cars? Oh right. They didn't happen.

And, in the meantime, as mentioned, Simmons is making a ton of money selling concert tickets. The article notes $400 million in concert tickets sold in the last 8 years, and that's only a tiny fraction of the KISS business behemoth, which sells all sorts of scarcities that people want to buy. In other words, Simmons (who wastes no opportunity to talk about what a brilliant business man he is) has actually figured out how to thrive in a world where free copying is rampant, by selling stuff that can't be copied for free. He should be one of the poster children for showing how you build a business that "competes with free." It's just sad that he either doesn't realize why his business worked, or he wants to mislead everyone about it.

Anyway, you can watch the video below of this talk. The whole talk is about 40 min but I've queued up to the parts quoted here:

Filed Under: business models, fans, gene simmons, lawsuits, music industry

Band Claims File Sharers 'Are Going To Hell'

from the well,-that'll-sort-it-out-then dept

Apparently, when confronted with changing business models that make your old model less reliable, different people act in different ways. An anonymous reader points us to the news that the singer of the band Elbow, Guy Garvey, has decided to take a religious view on the matter and has declared that file sharers are going to hell. His view of the religion of music economics is apparently that it's okay to download if you're poor, but if you can afford to pay, it's a sin to download and share. He then goes on to thank his record label -- whom he refers to as his "paymaster" -- and suggest that the band is "lucky." While I'm sure luck plays a part in all of it, perhaps not damning people to hell for just listening to your music would be a good start.

He notes that the band has a dedicated bunch of fans, which is great, but shouldn't they be focusing on giving them real reasons to buy, rather than invoking threats of brimstone and hellfire to guilt people into buying? It really comes down to a simple equation. You can make people feel good about buying something, or you can focus on making them feel bad if they don't buy. I tend to think that, in this day and age, the former is much better than the latter. Why worry about those who are downloading, when you can focus on providing good value and a good experience for those who want to support you?

Filed Under: elbow, fans, file sharing, guy garvey

Movie Producers Want Sole Ownership Of Facebook Fans

from the alternate-destinations dept

chunlou apparently is involved with a Facebook fanpage for the movie Let Me In. For over a year, the fan page has built up a nice collection of photos and videos related to the movie -- much of it created by fans (fanart, parodies, etc.) along with promotional material from the film (trailers and promotional photos released by the studio) which you would think would make the studio happy to see spread. Not so much, apparently. Rather than embracing these fans, Overture Films apparently has freaked out about losing "control" of fans -- and has had a partner issue a takedown notice to Facebook, demanding all of the artwork be taken down as infringing. What's noteworthy is that in the letter itself, the company demanding the takedown, Mammoth Advertising, is pretty upfront that the reason isn't that the works are harming the market for those same works -- but that Overture doesn't want fans going anywhere but its official site to learn about the movie. The key passage in the letter:

"... we fear that they are establishing themselves as an alternate destination and authority for the film. They could post false, misleading, or inappropriate content about the film which would be seen by Facebook users."

Of course, if they posted false or misleading content, then the filmmakers would be able to make claims against them. That they're trying to misuse copyright law to take down such a fan effort seems deeply troubling. It's an abuse of copyright law, which is designed not to prevent someone from potentially doing something "misleading," but supposedly to give the producer a monopoly solely for the purpose of creating the incentive to create the content. Is Overture really suggesting that if this fanpage is allowed to continue it won't have incentive to make movies any more?

There's also a pretty strong case for fair use here again. While I haven't seen the fanart, so that could depend, if we go through the basic four factors test, it's hard to see how any of them side with Overture. The purpose is clearly non-commercial for the creators of the fanpage. The nature of the work is that it's a fanpage, designed to promote the original work and to provide commentary on it. It's not showing the movie itself, but rather promotional clips that were released by the filmmakers to gain interest in the film, so it's not using much of the actual movie. And, the user-generated content sounds at least somewhat transformative (though, again, it would help to actually see what was taken down).

Finally, while the letter accuses the fan page of pulling content off of the official site, chunlou insists that that did not happen, and claims that the official site was way too slow to update, and they usually had the content first. Frankly, the whole thing seems pretty silly. A decade ago, we would hear about movie studios freaking out about fanpages, but it had seemed like most of them had figured out that such things are a good thing. Apparently, some filmmakers aren't quite there yet.

Anyway, we've posted the full takedown letter after the jump, where they admit that they're happy that there is a fan group, but they're afraid too many people will go there. Chunlou has filed a counternotice claiming fair use, so we'll see if Overture takes this any further.

Filed Under: copyright, fanpages, fans, let me in
Companies: facebook, mammoth advertising, overture films

Weezer Appears In Others' Viral Videos

from the spreading-the-wealth dept

A few years back, the band Weezer put together its famous Pork & Beans video, which included a bunch of famous YouTube viral video stars. While there were some temporary issues when the band or its label screwed up and made the video itself non-embeddable, eventually things worked out. Apparently, the band is taking it up a notch this time. Rather than inviting YouTube stars into a Weezer video, the band is appearing in a bunch of videos for YouTube stars, on their own channels -- effectively distributing the wealth. The YouTubers get to keep any ad revenue, but, of course the whole thing helps promote Weezer's new album. Kind of amazing when you realize that it really wasn't that long ago that the record labels were insisting that YouTube was harming musicians, huh? Anyway, here are a few of the "Weezer Invades YouTube" videos:

Filed Under: fans, viral videos, weezer

Is Publishing A Magazine & Website About Ohio State's Sports Teams Infringing?

from the free-speech-anyone? dept

Earlier this year, we highlighted the ridiculousness and troubling implications of various court rulings that held that only sports teams or universities themselves could legally offer sports paraphernalia such as t-shirts, completely wiping out the tradition of fan-created t-shirts. The reasoning behind those rulings was tremendously problematic, and now may be extended much further, showing how those original restrictions could have huge free speech implications.

Paul Alan Levy, who had also written that earlier story, points us to the news that Ohio State has successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against a company that was seeking to publish a magazine and a website devoted to Ohio States' sports. That seems like a clear freedom of the press situation, and in a sane world, a situation that would make Ohio State happy. After all, more press coverage has to be good, right? But not when the university wants to be able to license the rights to anything having to do with the school's sports teams:

Instead of welcoming this additional coverage as a form of homage, and considering how a second set of web sites and magazines could intensify public interest and thus help promote the University, Ohio State went to court complaining of the defendants' attempt to "rip off" Ohio State's sports enterprise. The university protested that it had just started to license out the right to publish sports programs, instead of doing such publications inhouse, and if outsiders could publish programs without permission, the value of this licensing would be reduced.

This argument makes no sense. None. You could similarly argue that about any form of news coverage. I could say that I've licensed out the ability to write about Techdirt posts, and anyone writing about Techdirt without permission will have reduced the value of my license process. But, everyone would recognize that's a ridiculous claim.

Unfortunately, given little time, the publisher apparently wasn't able to muster compelling arguments against the temporary restraining order, which the judge granted, claiming that such a magazine would infringe on Ohio State's trademarks. As Levy notes, this is tremendously problematic from a free expression standpoint:

The price of creating a major sports franchise that is the main interest of the populace of a large state is that the teams become a legitimate topic of public conversation. Indeed, a well-counseled franchise ought to revel in being a subject of such discussion and indeed adulation. Third parties ought to be able to participate in that discussion even when their motivation is to make money from their participation. Trademark law should not be available to impede such discussion.

Filed Under: fans, ohio state, sports, trademark

GooGoo Dolls Frontman Admits To Using Limewire; Says He Likes Fan-Made Video More Than His Official Video

from the infringer!! dept

Reader samkash points us to a recent interview with The Goo Goo Doll's John Rzeznik by Mike Ragogna. There are two bits in the interview that will be interesting to folks around here. The first is that he admits that he doesn't really like the official video for the band's new single... but mentions that he much prefers a fan-made video found on YouTube:

MR: Yeah. Now, "Home" is your new single?

JR: Yes.

MR: And it comes with a video.

JR: I've got to be honest, man, I don't really like the video. They kind of wanted to do this sort take off on Lost In Translation, and I'm doing a hundred things, and I'm like, "Sure, okay, that's fine. Let's do it." You know, there's another video out on YouTube that the fans made. They sent in little video clips and some woman edited them together, and I think it captures a lot more emotion than the official video did.

MR: Often, fans do know what's best.

JR: They do, they always do.

Stories like this always amuse me, because, of course, it wasn't that long ago that all we heard was how evil such "infringers" were, in creating their own videos "using music that doesn't belong to them." It's always nice to see musicians realize that fans making videos are fans making videos, rather than threatening them with infringement claims.

The second interesting bit is the fact that Rzeznik admits to using Limewire to find a song that he couldn't get on iTunes. This is, of course, why many folks use tools like Limewire, but if you believe some of the people speaking out against file sharing, you would hear that it's "destroying the music business," how no real musicians would ever use file sharing programs, and how the only reason people use stuff is because "they just want stuff for free." Not only does this show, yet again, that there are other reasons why some folks use file sharing programs, but in this case, Rzeznik not only downloaded the song, but it resulted in the Goo Goo Dolls covering the song he downloaded on their latest "deluxe version" of the album.

MR: Something For The Rest Of Us also is released as a deluxe version with a digital download of "Home," a signed lithograph, and three bonus tracks--Flesh For Lulu's "Postcard From Paradise," Pete Townshend's "Rough Boys," and the Kinks' "Catch Me Now I'm Falling"?

JR: Yeah, yeah.

MR: What inspired the covers?

JR: Well, I love that Flesh For Lulu song. It's such a great song, and I was looking through the old CDs and stuff trying to download it online. Actually, I have to confess that I went to Limewire and found a copy of the original song because I couldn't find it on iTunes. So, if I ever run into the guys from Flesh For Lulu, I promise I'll give them a buck (laughs). It's just such a great pop song, and people don't write songs like that very much anymore.

Filed Under: fans, file sharing, goo goo dolls, john rzeznik, mashups, videos

MLB Using Trademark To Decapitate Fan Promotion Of The Philly Phanatic On A Flugtag

from the say-that-five-times-fast dept

Major League Baseball is notorious for it's incredibly over aggressive enforcement of copyright and trademark laws, often well-beyond what is reasonable. Reader Mark alerts us to MLB's latest move, which is to demand that a flugtag team from Philadelphia remove the head of the Philly Fanatic that it put on their flugtag for one of Red Bull's regular Flugtag competitions. MLB's defense, I'm sure, is that it has to enforce the trademark and make sure no one else is using it without a license. But that's just silly. First of all, there's only a trademark offense when it's a use in commerce, and a silly competition based on trying to launch homemade, human-powered flying machines that cannot fly, is not quite a use in commerce. But, more to the point, these are fans of the team trying to promote the team and promote their fandom. And MLB is shutting them down. That's not particularly fan friendly. And so, instead of the Philly Phanatic on a Flugtag, it'll be decapitated by a silly trademark claim.

Filed Under: fans, flugtag, philly phanatic, trademark
Companies: mlb

Connecting With Fans Is About More Than Getting People To Pay Attention To You

from the a-connection-goes-beyond-first-access dept

When I first start talking about this whole CwF+RtB thing, I tended to focus more on the "RtB -- Reason to Buy" part of it, because I naturally assumed that was the big problem. After all, the big thing we kept hearing was how creative folks weren't able to make money any more. However, the more I've been discussing this with people, the more I realize that many, many folks out there have serious problems with the first part, the "connecting with fans," part. I recently got an email from an artist who seemed upset, saying that he was giving out all of his music for free, but fans weren't interested. Similarly, I recently got into a discussion in the comments with someone from a newspaper who insisted that I was wrong in saying news organizations need to better enable their community. His argument was that newspapers put up comments, just like we have at Techdirt, so they're doing the exact same thing as we are.

Both of these appear to be cases of cargo cult copying, where someone tries to copy just the superficial outwardly obvious aspects of what others are doing, without taking the time to understand (1) the deeper underlying reasons why they work for some or (2) recognizing how that might (or might not) apply to what you're doing yourself. Connecting with fans isn't about "oh just give away content for free," or "oh, put up some comment forms." It's about actually figuring out what your community wants, interacting with them, and giving them what they want. It's about actually participating in some manner.

I was thinking about all of this as I read an interesting blog post by Marcus Taylor, where he explains the process by which he became a fan of the singer Jason Mraz, who had that catchy hit single last summer that many of you probably heard. But just hearing a catchy hit song being played over and over again isn't enough to make someone a true fan. Taylor points out that it went way beyond that, and took him not just listening to much more of Mraz's music via various online offerings, but then coming across some interviews with Mraz, where his personality shines through. Taylor points out that it took some time, but he finally realized that he didn't just like Mraz's music, but he liked Mraz -- and that made the jump possible. From there he comes up with a short list of "ways to make fans fall in love with you":

• Be yourself -- Most people despise a fake personality and can smell it a mile off, be your self and people will appreciate that.
• Be transparent -- don't hide the fact that you're a small local band if that's what you are -- if you're honest and likeable then your fans will be more inclined to help you get to the next step.
• Be professional but not too serious -- After all, life's too short for being too serious and worrying about everything, have fun but remain professional.
• Leave breadcrumbs everywhere -- better yet, leave breadcrumbs that show off the points above and give your fans a good reason to love you. Remember not all fans react to the same mediums as strongly so keep producing images, videos, and text content to bait them.

Obviously, this doesn't apply for everyone, and there is no "magic formula" for figuring out the best way to connect with fans, but it's certainly about doing a lot more than tossing out some free content and a comment form and wondering why fans aren't rushing to you. You actually need to be a part of that process, and actually let your personality come through. Being human really counts for something, and it's a point that's ignored all too often.

Along those lines, this upcoming Tuesday, at the a2n conference in Berlin, I'll be leading a brainstorming session generating ideas for musicians to better connect with their fans.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, fans, jason mraz

Big Game Studio Mocks Indie Developer For Saying He Wants To Connect With Fans

from the how-nice dept

It seems that no matter what area of the content creation business we talk about, when we talk about business models that work for smaller, indie content creators, which focus on connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy, we almost always get someone scoffing about how that model doesn't work for the big blockbusters. First of all, I don't think that's true, but more importantly, it misses the point. If the content creator is happy making a good living with happy and loyal fans, what's wrong with that? Two recent stories in the video gaming space highlighted this issue.

The first, found via Karl Bode, is a story about how Mark Rein, a VP from Epic Games, the large video game developer behind Gears of War among other games, audibly scoffs at Cliff Harris of the one-man shop Positech Games (whom we've written about before, concerning his plans to "compete with pirates.") Harris was on stage discussing how indie developers, like himself, had an easier time "forming personal relationships with gamers." Apparently, Rein loudly announced that forming a personal relationship with "a small number of gamers" was a "waste of time." Harris shot back on his blog, pointing out that (a) whatever he's doing is working for him, because he's been happily making games (and a living) for 13 years and seems to have a devoted fanbase and (b) Mark Rein is a jerk for acting the way he did.

I think it has something to do with the mindset of those who focus on shooting for "blockbuster" type successes. They know that direct one-to-one relationships don't scale to the blockbuster level (not that there aren't different ways to connect with fans), so they look down upon it. But, the thing is, for those who aren't aiming for blockbuster results -- but a good living -- it works out great. And the nice thing is that it's possible to do that these days without having to sell your soul to some company only targeted towards making blockbusters.

Along those lines, JohnForDummies, points us to a talk by BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk at the same conference, where he noted that trying to develop blockbuster video games these days is probably a mistake. Basically, the risk is way too high, because you have to become a top 10 seller to make back your money. Instead, he suggested focusing on more specific, and achievable goals -- which certainly could include focusing on a niche and better connecting with that niche, as Harris described above, despite the scoffing from Rein. The problem is the same one we see in music, movies, books and other arenas, where people have defined "success" one way for so long, they don't quite realize that others define it differently. Where it becomes sad is when it leads to personal attacks on those who have forged their own path successfully.

Filed Under: cliff harris, connecting with fans, fans, indie developers, mark rein
Companies: epic games

Nintendo Doesn't Want To Criminalize Obsessed Fans... But Sometimes Will Anyway

from the well,-that's-comforting dept

A whole bunch of you have been sending over a blog post from Kotaku quoting Nintendo president Satoru Iwata responding at a shareholder meeting to a question about how the company handles "fan activities" that technically infringe on Nintendo's intellectual property. Iwatu said they don't want to criminalize fans doing something out of appreciation, but that there's a lot that goes into the decision making process:

As the principle, please understand that the question is regarding a rather delicate issue to which no one can perhaps identify a clear-cut criterion. Of course, we cannot say that we can give tacit approval to any and all the activities which threaten our intellectual properties. But on the other hand, it would not be appropriate if we treated people who did something based on affection for Nintendo, as criminals. It is true that some expressions are detrimental enough to diminish the dignity of our intellectual properties, and others destroy our intellectual properties' world-views by connecting them with something not based on fact. We think one of the criteria for deciding how to respond is whether the expression in question socially diminishes the dignity or value of our intellectual properties or not. Of course, it is very hard to have a blanket standard as this problem involves many complex elements that are very difficult to judge.

In these meanings, we cannot say OK to any and all such activities and, at the same time, it is not feasible for us to immediately respond to each small issue of this nature every time. However, these days an individual can easily transmit information through the Internet. Hearing your question today, as we cannot find these problems only by ourselves, we feel that a kind of contact window should be set up so that people can somehow report to us any inappropriate uses of Nintendo's intellectual properties which diminish their dignities or values, so that we can respond appropriately.

While a lot of people are suggesting this is a revelation, I'm not so sure. Lots of companies give this kind of wishy-washy answer on such things. I remember hearing something quite similar from Warner Bros. general counsel concerning how it views fan fiction as well. But, again, the proof is in the pudding, and when we hear stories about Nintendo shutting down a fan-made film based on The Legend of Zelda, it suggests that perhaps they're not necessarily living up to the claims made by Iwatu.

Filed Under: criminalize, fan fiction, fans
Companies: nintendo