SoundExchange, Once Again, Warns Artists That If They Don't Register, It Might Keep Their Royalties

from the again? dept

You may recall that nearly a decade ago, people began to question why SoundExchange, the RIAA spinoff created to collect satellite and internet broadcasting royalties, was allowed to keep any of the money for artists it couldn't find. That resulted in some controversy, when people realized that it was sitting on over $100 million and suggesting it might keep the money for a big list of artists it couldn't find. After much uproar, SoundExchange backed down, and said that it wasn't, in fact, keeping the money. And, to its credit, in the past few years, SoundExchange has been very good about working a variety of angles to get artists signed up to get the money they're owed from such webcasting royalties (such as those Pandora was just talking about).

However, some artists still aren't signing up -- and SoundExchange is apparently giving people something of an ultimatum, in which they hint at the fact that, you know, if they wanted to they absolutely could just keep the money.

Register by Oct. 15 as you may risk losing any royalties collected three (3) or more years ago by SoundExchange.

SoundExchange is authorized by law to release older unclaimed royalties to offset our costs and distribute proportionally to those we already pay. We have repeatedly held off on doing this, but we need your help to spread the word and get recording artists and record labels to register.

As some have noticed there are some pretty big names on the "unclaimed" list. Swedish House Mafia, N.W.A., Billy Bob Thornton, Sublime, Fleetwood Mac, Rebecca Black, Louis CK, Grandmaster Flash, The Byrds, Charlie Sheen, Brother Ali... and a bunch of others. I'm pretty surprised that Rebecca Black and Louis CK haven't figured this out yet... but there's one name on the list that is stunning: Gene Simmons. Simmons is famous for being focused almost entirely on getting money, even to the point of saying that artists should sue their fans. You'd think that somewhere along the line he'd notice that he should register with SoundExchange to get what's owed to him.

For what it's worth -- while there were some legitimate concerns that SoundExchange was doing little to "find" these artists, I no longer believe that's the case. Having watched their efforts over the past few years, they really have done quite a lot to try to get artists to register. Of course, this really just highlights one of the problems of setting up a system like SoundExchange in the first place. Creating unnecessary middlemen may seem like a useful solution, but it often seems to just prevent more direct support of artists. Still, if you are a recording artist of any kind, it's worth getting registered to avoid having SoundExchange keep the money it has for you for itself.

Filed Under: gene simmons, registration, royalties
Companies: soundexchange

KISS Videos Removed Due To Copyright Claims

from the sue-'em-all dept

We noted recently that Kiss's Gene Simmons has (not for the first time) declared war on people who infringe on his copyrights, declaring that they should all be sued and that:

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, that resulted in the "group" Anonymous taking down his website, which resulted in more angry claims from Simmons. So, it's interesting to note, via THREsq, that the official KISS YouTube channel has apparently been taken down for copyright infringement, leading to videos embedded on the band's official website to show the following message: Oops. At first I wondered if this was more work of Anonymous, submitting bogus copyright claims to take down the videos, but the company involved, S'More Entertainment, does appear to be a legitimate company that supposedly holds the rights to a bunch of music videos, which suggests perhaps it has a claim on some of those videos. I'm not convinced that the takedowns are legit just yet, but that certainly would be quite ironic if Simmons and KISS got caught for copyright infringement themselves, following Simmons' own statements.

Filed Under: copyright, gene simmons, kiss
Companies: s'more entertainment, youtube

Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail

from the good-luck,-gene dept

A couple of weeks ago, Gene Simmons made one of his ridiculously misguided attacks on file sharers (he does it every few years). Despite the fact that KISS is a perfect example of a band that makes a ton of money from scarce goods that are made more valuable the more people are aware of their music, Simmons has this misguided notion that "suing everyone" is the right strategy. Of course, as we pointed out at the time, he's obviously bluffing, because he's had the opportunity to do so for years and he has not done so.

Either way, his antics caught the attention of the folks behind "Operation Payback," from the group Anonymous (an effort that I still think is equally misguided), and they took down Simmons' website with a DDoS attack (after an apparent dispute internally over whether or not Simmons should be a target).

Either way, it appears that the attack only sharpened the rhetoric from Simmons, in his standard speak-first-understand-later manner. He posted on his site that he was working with the FBI to "sue their pants off" for "hacking" his site:

Some of you may have heard a few popcorn farts re: our sites being threatened by hackers.

Our legal team and the FBI have been on the case and we have found a few, shall we say "adventurous" young people, who feel they are above the law.

And, as stated in my MIPCOM speech, we will sue their pants off.

First, they will be punished.

Second, they might find their little butts in jail, right next to someone who's been there for years and is looking for a new girl friend.

We will soon be printing their names and pictures.

We will find you.

You cannot hide.

Stay tuned

Well, good luck with that. It tends to be a lot harder to identify folks behind a DDoS attack than you might think. Also, I'm curious why the FBI even cares, but we've seen the FBI kowtow to celebrities in the past, so it's possible. Either way, all this has done, so far, is to get Anonymous back to taking down Simmons' website. My guess is that, just like his previous comments, this looks like Simmons as all-talk-and-no-action. But, the more he tries to become the latest version of Lars Ulrich, the more he's going to regret it.

Filed Under: 4chan, anonymous, ddos, gene simmons

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

How Not To Connect With Fans: Let Them Vote And Then Ignore The Vote

from the nice-going-kiss dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sends in this example of how the band KISS tried and failed (miserably) in its attempt to "connect with fans." Apparently the band held an online contest to get fans to vote for where KISS would perform -- calling it the "You Demand It Tour." Well, people voted, and the second largest vote getter was Manchester, New Hampshire. So what happened? The band ignored the vote and booked a show in Boston instead. In response, some local radio folks are starting a petition to try to get the band to actually live up to its promise to go where fans demanded:

Three months ago - when KISS launched their "You Demand It Tour", Buzz Lumpa's jumped all over it in an effort to bring KISS back to the Verizon Wireless Arena. The deal was that the band would rout their tour to the cities that wanted them most - and that meant the cities that cast the most votes. Manchester NH did just that - beating out EVERY major U.S. city! We cast more votes than New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and yes- Boston. Over 240 cities were vying for the band - and Manchester NH placed 2nd in the U.S.! And yet, when KISS announced their tour itinerary, Manchester NH was NOT on it. The band chose to play Boston instead. KISS lied to you.

Of course, given Gene Simmons' comments on new business models and the experiments of bands like Radiohead to better connect with fans (Simmons claimed it was killing the recording industry) perhaps this is no surprise.

Filed Under: fans, gene simmons, kiss, manchester, new hampshire, voting

Now Gene Simmons Is Blaming Radiohead For Killing The Recording Industry

from the while-making-money-for-themselves dept

Last fall, we wrote about Kiss's Gene Simmons explanation for why the RIAA should be suing even more people to stop the evils of file sharing. There were all sorts of problems with it -- and when the interviewer pointed to the success stories of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, Simmons brushed them off as being not worth commenting on because they were "exceptions" rather than business models that work. Of course, if it were just an exception, then it wouldn't be much of a problem, but as a few folks have sent in, it appears that Simmons is increasingly upset with Radiohead, suggesting that its "exception" is helping to destroy the industry. He seems to be skipping over the part where Radiohead made a ton of money from its "exception."

It's difficult to see how an example of a way to make a lot of money could possibly be killing an industry -- unless Simmons is defining the "industry" so narrowly to only include the selling of plastic discs with music. And, of course, after blaming Radiohead, he turns on the real problem: those darn fans: "The record industry is dead. It's six feet underground and unfortunately the fans have done this." Always a winning strategy: blame your biggest fans for your own inability to embrace a business model that makes sense to them.

Filed Under: gene simmons, music industry, radiohead, recording industry

Don't Take Economics Lessons From Gene Simmons

from the kissinomics dept

Gene Simmons made a first career out of being an outrageous rocker behind the band KISS. He's made something of a second career out of making totally ridiculous and outlandish statements and watching the reaction as people go nuts. His latest is no different as he (perhaps on purpose) shows no understanding of basic economics in trashing the concept of using free music as a promotional effort (found via Digg). He starts out by claiming that he told the recording industry bosses that they should have sued more students earlier:

"I called for what it was when college kids first started download music for free -- that they were crooks. I told every record label I spoke with that they just lit the fuse to their own bomb that was going to explode from under them and put them on the street.... 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, this isn't even remotely true, and you'd think that Simmons would know it. Every aspect of the music business other than putting out CDs has been doing better. There are more bands making more music. There are more concerts and bands are making more money than ever before from touring. Tools for making recordings are selling better than ever before. Musical instrument sales are going up as well. More people are making money from music today than ever before. So it's hard to take Simmons' comments on the matter at face value. In fact some would argue that the whole reason that the recording industry is suffering is because they tried to follow Simmons' idea of suing these kids. The interviewer tries to point out the Radiohead and Trent Reznor examples as to why he might be wrong, and he brushes it off:

"That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And 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*cking crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?"

That's a nice sleight of hand trick there. First he tries to set the parameters by saying that you can't pick an exception... even though he was the one insisting you can't make money with free music -- so an exception is pretty important. Then he says it's not a business model that works, but actually it appears to be working quite well. Finally, he makes an incorrect comparison to a shop selling tangible goods. He never actually explains why using free as a part of your business model doesn't work, he just says it doesn't -- even when presented with examples where it does work. Then, he really goes off the economic rails. When the interviewer suggests that music can be promotional for tours and merchandise, Simmons responds:

"Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. 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.

Except that... no. First of all, it doesn't matter that the music is the most important part. Breathable air is the most important part of living, but we're not paying for it, because it's abundant. He says "without [music] why would you care?" but no one is saying the music goes anywhere. They're just saying that the music is used to make lots of other stuff more valuable. As for his ridiculous assertions about the price of gold, apparently Simmons doesn't believe in supply and demand, and thinks that economics is all based on shared delusions. That would explain the rest of his comments.

Anyway, the kicker in all of this is that despite Simmons comments, it appears that even he doesn't believe what he's saying. Right in the middle of his tirade about how you can never get paid for putting out music if people can get it for free, he notes that he's coming out with two new boxsets of music. Apparently, despite his complaints, he does think that people will pay him -- and he's probably right about that, despite being wrong about everything else.

Filed Under: gene simmons, music industry, recording industry