Paul Stanley: 'You Can't Share What You Don't Own'

Paul Stanley of KISS was asked by Reuters for his view of the music business today.

Paul Stanley: 'You Can't Share What You Don't Own'
0
Legendary rockers KISS will release their 20th studio album, "Monster", on October 16 through Universal Music Enterprises, Blabbermouth reports. Described in a press release as a "12-track, straight-ahead rock 'n' roll album," the CD features collaborations among all four members - including co-founders Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons and longtime members guitarist Tommy Thayer and drummer Eric Singer - in an album that shows the band at the top of its game. When asked by Reuters what fans can expect from "Monster", Stanley said, "Its heart is beating, and it's chained down until we release it in October. I was asked if it's a great KISS album and I said, forget about KISS - I truly believe it's far beyond being a KISS album. It's a great album of its genre with all the elements of all the classic bands that I listened to - all the music that inspired me - The Who, The [Rolling] Stones, Humble Pie, [Eric] Clapton, [Jimi] Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. That's what I grew up with, and it inspired me to create passion, chaos, something sexually aggressive that'd celebrate life. That's a description of rock n' roll." KISS and Mötley Crüe will joined forces for a co-headlining tour - dubbed simply "The Tour" - which will kick off on July 20 in Bristow, Virginia. Stanley told Reuters about the trek, "It's a lot more than people usually get in one night. It's being bombarded with rock 'n' roll. Mötley's co-headlining, and one thing we didn't want to do was the kind of sabotage between bands that happens. We always figured, let a band go out and do the greatest show they can, and that'll only amp us up to do what we do that much better. There's no ego clashes, and this is another way to give fans more than just a concert - it's an event." When asked for his view of the music business today, Stanley told Reuters, "It's in shambles. I don't even know if it's a business now. It lost its footing when the Internet arrived and ways to clamp down on piracy weren't put into effect. Suddenly you had people file sharing, which is a nice way of saying stealing. You can't share what you don't own."

111 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    boratian
    Can't share what I don't own? If I pay $9.99 for a CD, I own it. Fuck you
    spiff-corgi
    I buy my own music, but I think there's better analogies than "you can't share what you don't own" out there. There's lots of stuff you can share that you don't own. And I also disagree that the music industry is declining because of piracy. If radio stations actually supported up and coming, independent musicians as opposed to those funded by giant labels who will make hundreds of millions regardless, no one would be talking about piracy.
    Kueller917
    Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!"
    But the issue wasn't that piracy regulations weren't put into effect like he said. The problem was that the Internet offered the next generation of media distribution but the industry decided to antagonize it instead of embrace and use it.
    leohimself
    if it wasn't for file sharing i would've never heard of a lot of bands. bigger bands are just butthurt because they lost their oligarchy.
    Redd_dymond
    How many thick 12 year olds are commenting here saying they have a right to distribute an artist's music without their consent? This one is typical:
    Sparky-MMA wrote: if i bought the CD i own that CD and i own the playing rights to that CD if i then decide to upload those songs to youtube with the album cover as a background, having bought the CD and therefore owning a right to the music as a consumer and the artwork i am therefore by law entitled to back up my music in any way i see fit, if that is via youtube then that is allowed, if others decide to listen to the music on youtube then that is they're perogative.
    "playing rights", whatever on earth that means, certainly does NOT include uploading the music onto youtube. a sensible degree of backing up music for personal use is surely fine, but using youtube as a "backup" is a downright stupid argument. Owning a CD does not mean you own the music, it is not yours to distribute at whatever price you see fit, or "share". It is stealing - it is taking something that is not yours and treating it as though it is. Stop being in denial about it - if making and selling music was your way of making a living, you would be pissed off if someone took it upon themselves to distribute your music free of charge. Theoretically, a band only has to sell 1 copy of an album, and then no one else has to pay for it. Does that make any sense whatsoever? That said, I do like listening to music people have uploaded on youtube. Hypocrite? yes, yes I am.
    Kain Highwind
    Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!"
    Musicians barely make any money off record sales
    Metallicuh
    Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales
    So let's steal it so they don't make any money at all...
    goto11
    Seriously, piracy isn't anything new with the invention of the internet. Back in the 80's and 90's everyone was using their boombox and tape recorders to copy albums, record from the radio, and make mix tapes for themselves or others, sometimes in an attempt to get laid, and apparently the music industry was fine then. I won't steal his record because I think I'm entitled. I'll do it because I don't make millions a year and I can't afford to to waste cash on a shitty album. When I hear it, and know it's good and that I want to own it, then I'll pay him his money.
    Kain Highwind
    dyerseve30 wrote: Kain Highwind wrote: Metallicuh wrote: Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales So let's steal it so they don't make any money at all... They make money off merchandise and ticket sales If anything, piracy helps because it helps spread the music more. More people hear it, more people go to shows Why do you think so many younger musicians are open to giving away their music for free? You are ignorant. Bands that make no money from record labels usually are stupid fools that sign bad contracts and make poor business decisions. That being said, must bands consist of uneducated dropouts that do make bad decisions. Many of these "younger musicians" aren't even signed to major labels anyways. So the albums that you're stealing and file sharing are the same albums they paid to make and see 90% of the profit. It is not hard these days to get a great sounding album at an affordable price. Your argument makes no sense. Most bands that give shit out for free are either desperate or well off anyways. And do you think they see 100% profit from ticket sales and merch? NOPE! Managers, distributors, venues, etc. all see a percentage of the money made from that as well. And your promotion argument is bullshit too. If millions of people are illegally downloading your music, you obviously don't need promotion. There are better ways to get your music out to the masses that don't result in your band getting ****ed. Look for new bands on iTunes, Spotify, reverberation, etc. if you want to find new bands. It's literally not hard. It says right on the damn CD its illegal to make unauthorized copies. That includes burning CDs for your friends or sharing it on the internet. It might seem stupid, but its the law and it is illegal.
    Its against the law to jaywalk
    HaveSomeGlue
    Piracy isn't stealing. Stealing would be if you stole a car and it wasn't there in the morning. Piracy would be if you stole a car and it was still there the next day.
    Minivirus2
    Kain Highwind wrote: The mainstream music industry and major labels need to go away already
    You have no idea what a label does, do you?
    Maestro1600
    HaveSomeGlue wrote: Piracy isn't stealing. Stealing would be if you stole a car and it wasn't there in the morning. Piracy would be if you stole a car and it was still there the next day.
    Not every crime is exactly the same. The law protects intellectual property as much as it does physical property. If a student writes an essay, and another student copies it, it's clearly theft. It doesn't make any difference that the first student still has his work. If someone obtains an album without paying for it, they have effectively stolen that revenue. The fact that that revenue would be split between artists, distributors, promoters etc is irrelevant. And, yes, some artists willingly put out music for free in order to build a fanbase and get people to shows (where more revenue goes to the artists), but that's their choice. If a band (or a label) decide to sell the music, their choice should be respected. We all know there will always be people who pirate that music, and that's their choice. But don't justify it. Just admit that laws are being broken. Paul Stanley is a tool, mind...
    Kain Highwind
    Metallicuh wrote: Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales So let's steal it so they don't make any money at all...
    They make money off merchandise and ticket sales If anything, piracy helps because it helps spread the music more. More people hear it, more people go to shows Why do you think so many younger musicians are open to giving away their music for free?
    scawti
    File sharing is just a digital version of copying a physical cd that someone went to the shops and bought and giving it to a friend, which the UK government just recently legalised I might add which classifies it as not stealing whatsoever
    I completely disagree. When you give friends cds, or copy friend's cds, one of you bought it. Say you each share 10 Cds, that's 10 cds paid for and supporting the music industry. With online sharing, one person can share one cd with a thousand people, and one of those people can share 100 songs that they didn't buy with another thousand people who then share...
    Kueller917
    rattleurhead wrote: Kain Highwind I'm sorry, but you're pretty ****ing stupid. Yeah people shared back in the 80's and 90's, but it was on a much smaller scale than file sharing. If major labels went away, guess what? So would all the major tours. That means no mayhem fest, no big Lamb of God/Dethklok tour, which in turn means not nearly as much merch sails or promotion for bands on these labels. Also, they wouldn't have money to record the music you love so much, because guess where they get it? The ****ing record label. So stop trying to justify your's and everyone else's mass theft of the music industry, and help support the bands that make the music you love.
    There's plenty of artists who have made it decent with smaller labels or self-releases. And bands that have gained popularity and turned to self-releasing make even more money because more of the profit goes directly to them. With the internet it's become so easy to find bands of all kinds there's not a huge need for giant promotions. Sure, without major labels there may not be extensive stadium tours but if everything has to eventually go down to smaller venues I'd be fine with that.
    getts182 wrote: So let me get this straight...you're saying that you're willing to drop cash at a legit record store for an album, but if they don't have it, you're willing to illegally download the music. If you're willing to spend money at a store, what makes that any different than downloading the album legally from iTunes or Amazon? Clearly parting ways with the money for a physical problem isn't a concern, so why not part ways with money for its digital counterpart the right way?
    I'm just going to say I've had to download international albums that weren't in record stores, weren't on iTunes, and were only on Amazon used for like $50 minimum. There are some exceptions, even if the original poster may have been more general.
    J.R. Legrasse
    I always found a great irony when Lars Ulrich had his legal battle with Napster. Lars was one of the most prolific tape traders during the NWOBHM. He'd get a hold of singles and albums and tape them and send multiple copies to multiple people all over the world, as well as receive the same from others. So his great bitch must have been the speed and enormity at which file sharing occurs, and not the act itself, since I'm fairly certain Lars never sent Diamond Head, Tygers Of Pan Tang and Angel Witch cash for every cassette duplicate he made and mailed out and likewise received. Paul Stanley and the other sour grapes of music need to accept that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. This IS the music industry now. Frankly, the music biz has always been a scummy business full of rip-offs, payola, pay-to-play and royalty theft since the days of Robert Johnson to Alan Freed to Black Sabbath's management in the 70's to the allegations Tracii Guns makes about Steve Riley to what's going on with Geoff Tate today, so I don't understand why Paul suddenly finds this all so disconcerting.
    Crimson Ghost
    Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales
    This is the idea that really upsets me. Musicians might make a small cut from album sales, but how do you think labels afford to put bands on tour? You'd be surprised how many bands either can't tour, pull out of tours, or end up thousands of dollars in debt because they're funding themselves. I know bands on major record labels who tour constantly just to get by, and live off ramen noodles and water. It's not glamourous and it's in no small part due to music being pirated
    TheExterminator
    Can't share what you don't own? All right guys! Let's go back to trading tapes, the 80s version of downloading music, and what got all these Rock and Heavy Metal bands the popularity, despite most of them turning around and pissing on the fans now that they're all famous and rich! At least then it's something physical, right? Sharing music only hurts the music industry, and the music industry is absolutely useless unless you enjoy dumbed-down, made-for-radio trash. If these bigger has-been bands choose to side with the music industry instead of the music, let 'em die. Bands who deserve the money will get it, through touring and merchandise sales, not through selling records, and I'm sure we all know KISS has merchandising down. The only reason to ever buy an album is to own a physical copy of it. Don't trick yourself into believing you're supporting the band by buying it, because you're not. You want to support the music? Go to shows like the rest of us. Be active in your local scene, support the good bands, hate the bad. Give money directly to the bands, if possible. But don't get hung up on the idea that you're doing any good by just sitting back and buying shit on iTunes.
    Maestro1600
    beau05 wrote: It's a shame there are more posts in here b*tching about piracy, when what you should be doing is paying your respects to Jon Lord. I like KISS, but at this point in time, Paul and the rest of the goon squad can get f*cked
    You're absolutely right. How dare we have an opinion about this? Shame on all of us. Until you let us know that we've grieved long enough, all other news must stop.
    Charley2715
    boratian wrote: Can't share what I don't own? If I pay $9.99 for a CD, I own it. Fuck you
    I think you are missing the point just a little.
    cyclonus
    Crusty old dinosaurs with money burning holes through their pockets once again claiming file sharing is 'stealing'. File sharing is just a digital version of copying a physical cd that someone went to the shops and bought and giving it to a friend, which the UK government just recently legalised I might add which classifies it as not stealing whatsoever
    Scarface88
    boratian wrote: Can't share what I don't own? If I pay $9.99 for a CD, I own it. Fuck you
    Indeed, I reckon you have every right to share your CD with mates etc. However, 'sharing' the files from it online is a bit different. Not that I don't 'share' as well...
    Superperfex
    I think it has come to the point where fans want too much of their music and feel entitled to a musician's albums. Back in the good old days, you bought a new album and would listen to that disc frontwards and backwards until you knew it inside and out. Not to mention you had the lyric booklet and artwork to analyze. Now that everything is digital and being mass produced (digital copying) the fans are losing the original magic of having one album in their cd player and getting the full effect of the album. Fans are taking their thousands of stolen songs for granted. As for me, I'll stick to enjoying things a few albums at a time and actually enjoying it rather than skimming through it and then going on to the thousands of other tracks at my disposal.
    Z0S07657
    That photo makes Paul Stanley look like he's the love child of Prince and Paul Stanley
    HavokStrife
    You know, I had to go to four different stores to get the new Gojira album, because Target and Best Buy sell about the 10th of the albums they once did, and there's no longer an fye open around here. I ended up buying it at a local used record store. And if some local used record store is gunna be the only place in the world I'm gunna be able to get 'legal' music, then suck my ass, I'll be downloading some 'illegal' music as well. You're right, you can't share what you don't own, but you can't buy what's not for ****ing sale either, jackass.
    J.R. Legrasse
    JMV12 wrote: ...It would suck to spend such a long time composing and arranging songs, just to have someone else claim that they created the songs.
    Led Zeppelin disagrees.
    indiebass21
    Yes, it's illegal. No, it's not stealing. Stealing is when you take something from someone and they don't have it anymore. Piracy is different because the artist only loses insofar as someone would have bought that record. The problem is most people have gigantic music libraries--libraries that they would not have bought had free, easy piracy not existed. So, for instance, if I torrent Bruce Springsteen's discography, am I "stealing" it? If I had to pay for it, I would have bought maybe two or three songs. So, even though I'm pirating the whole discography, in reality, Bruce lost $3 on me. Illegal, yes. Wrong, maybe. But to simply label it "stealing" is to miss the nuance of what's going on.
    desdin0va
    karstaag666 wrote: Imagine you are working your ass off in a toy store, you make 7 an hour but then someone starts stealing the store's toys and your wage is reduced to cover the costs.. You are pissed because you are still doing your job well but you are being punished for someone elses wrong doings. Then the company starts letting people go because they cant afford the employees. And finally eventually the company closes down because it cant make profit.
    WHEN INDUSTRIES CHANGE, PEOPLE DOING THINGS THE OLD WAY LOSE THEIR JOBS. What are people still not getting about this basic concept?
    desdin0va
    And for the people who are still saying "yeah, but when you burn a copy of a CD for your friend, the artist still gets money off of the original purchase": the same applies here. The only difference is that the internet has allowed this process to scale up enormously, but there's still no CONCEPTUAL distinction between the two scenarios: somebody still had to buy the album that was then put on the torrent networks. How is this different than if, ten years ago, somebody were to buy a CD and then burn 50 copies of it for some friends? Or if they bought the original at a garage sale, and the artist were never to see ANY money off it?
    desdin0va
    Why don't people understand that this is by no means a new issue? When the player piano first came out, and people could just buy music for it rather than paying an artist to play in their home, everyone was predicting that music as an art form would completely disappear. Every time there's a new invention that allows for the distribution of products in a previously impossible way, SOMEBODY'S going to get burned, and it's usually the people who refuse to adapt. That's how progress works, not by artificially propping up an obsolete business model at the expense of innovation. We don't pay a dollar fee for every email we send just as a courtesy to the post office, do we?
    Kueller917
    kiba56 wrote: If people want to hear ther music for free Go to the bands myspace and you can listen to like all there album there for free without any charge at all
    Is there really a big difference in the concept of streaming or downloading? I'm saying this as someone who does stream a lot too.
    Minivirus2
    I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!"
    Kain Highwind
    scawti wrote: File sharing is just a digital version of copying a physical cd that someone went to the shops and bought and giving it to a friend, which the UK government just recently legalised I might add which classifies it as not stealing whatsoever I completely disagree. When you give friends cds, or copy friend's cds, one of you bought it. Say you each share 10 Cds, that's 10 cds paid for and supporting the music industry. With online sharing, one person can share one cd with a thousand people, and one of those people can share 100 songs that they didn't buy with another thousand people who then share...
    "Supporting the music industry" ...lol The mainstream music industry and major labels need to go away already
    BloodyPumpkins
    KISS and Mtley Cre will joined forces for a co-headlining tour
    Kiss shouldn't be lowering their standards like this...
    albinorino24
    Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales
    Musicians may not make much money off album sales but plenty of other people do. Don't forget about the songwriters that make money off the royalties, or the engineers, and producers. Plus all the 9-5 people that work for the labels. If nobody buys the albums then the labels don't make money and those hard working lower level employees lose their jobs
    AaronianKenrod
    Kain Highwind wrote: Metallicuh wrote: Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales So let's steal it so they don't make any money at all... They make money off merchandise and ticket sales If anything, piracy helps because it helps spread the music more. More people hear it, more people go to shows Why do you think so many younger musicians are open to giving away their music for free?
    Because they know they're not going to sell their stuff? Because no one will buy something by a small time musician? I've done the same as a recording artist, there's no point in submitting my stuff to iTunes/Amazon or whatever because I know no one is going to buy my stuff because I'm not an accomplished musician already.
    Maestro1600
    beau05 wrote: It's a shame there are more posts in here b*tching about piracy, when what you should be doing is paying your respects to Jon Lord. I like KISS, but at this point in time, Paul and the rest of the goon squad can get f*cked
    You're absolutely right. How dare we have an opinion about this? Shame on all of us. Until you let us know that we've grieved long en
    desdin0va
    No. No you are not. And even if that were true, you'd only be a thief under current law, and the law is not synonymous with what is right. If it were, then we would have to consider Jim Crow laws acceptable. Just because the government and entertainment industry lobbyists are working as hard as they can to keep us in stasis, doesn't mean they're right to do so, just that they haven't learned their lesson yet.
    getts182
    HavokStrife wrote: You know, I had to go to four different stores to get the new Gojira album, because Target and Best Buy sell about the 10th of the albums they once did, and there's no longer an fye open around here. I ended up buying it at a local used record store. And if some local used record store is gunna be the only place in the world I'm gunna be able to get 'legal' music, I'll be downloading some 'illegal' music as well.
    So let me get this straight...you're saying that you're willing to drop cash at a legit record store for an album, but if they don't have it, you're willing to illegally download the music. If you're willing to spend money at a store, what makes that any different than downloading the album legally from iTunes or Amazon? Clearly parting ways with the money for a physical problem isn't a concern, so why not part ways with money for its digital counterpart the right way?
    Lord_Doku
    I think the biggest problem about this whole piracy problem is that people religiously align themselves to such extremities. One side: "it doesn't really matter to the musicians, since record labels take most if not all the money for themselves anyway" Other side: "you merely pay a license to play the music, the medium is only a now-redundant neccesity" My side: "stop being so butthurt, buy it if you like it or pirate it if you find the price too high, quit the religiously gerrymanderd moral issues and don't even get started on the law." Fact is, piracy exists, and as long as there's a problem, it won't go. So either you live with it, or you ignore it and inadvertedly do the first thing anyway.
    dyerseve30
    Kain Highwind wrote: Metallicuh wrote: Kain Highwind wrote: Minivirus2 wrote: I fully agree, but the entitled folk will put Paul down and steal his record anyways because "He doesn't need the money!" Musicians barely make any money off record sales So let's steal it so they don't make any money at all... They make money off merchandise and ticket sales If anything, piracy helps because it helps spread the music more. More people hear it, more people go to shows Why do you think so many younger musicians are open to giving away their music for free?
    You are ignorant. Bands that make no money from record labels usually are stupid fools that sign bad contracts and make poor business decisions. That being said, must bands consist of uneducated dropouts that do make bad decisions. Many of these "younger musicians" aren't even signed to major labels anyways. So the albums that you're stealing and file sharing are the same albums they paid to make and see 90% of the profit. It is not hard these days to get a great sounding album at an affordable price. Your argument makes no sense. Most bands that give shit out for free are either desperate or well off anyways. And do you think they see 100% profit from ticket sales and merch? NOPE! Managers, distributors, venues, etc. all see a percentage of the money made from that as well. And your promotion argument is bullshit too. If millions of people are illegally downloading your music, you obviously don't need promotion. There are better ways to get your music out to the masses that don't result in your band getting ****ed. Look for new bands on iTunes, Spotify, reverberation, etc. if you want to find new bands. It's literally not hard. It says right on the damn CD its illegal to make unauthorized copies. That includes burning CDs for your friends or sharing it on the internet. It might seem stupid, but its the law and it is illegal.
    shreddymcshred
    BloodyPumpkins wrote: KISS and Mtley Cre will joined forces for a co-headlining tour Kiss shouldn't be lowering their standards like this...
    Motley Crue shouldn't be lowering their standards like this...
    xevious1
    boratian wrote: Can't share what I don't own? If I pay $9.99 for a CD, I own it. Fuck you
    you don't own the rights to reproduce and sell it, if i buy a car and i take it apart completely and use that knowledge to build more cars in the exact same way I cant sell those cars because I would be selling engineering ideas that i don't own and didn't invest in.
    aaronsutton27
    I'm not going to lie to you, I download albums. But the albums that I do download are from artists that have made it big, like the Foo Fighters, or RHCP, and don't really need all the help they can get. Now if I find an independent musician that I enjoy, I will gladly pay full price for their album, because I think that they deserve it. Not to say that the Foo Fighters and RHCP, or other big bands that play sold out arena shows, don't "deserve" my money as well, but I can guarantee they're not desperate for my money.