Print
As a little background, KISS front man Gene Simmons has been making some waves lately with some statements regarding people that infringe his copyrights. It's the sort of fire and brimstone rhetoric we're used to hearing from RIAA executives, but with harsher language. "…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," Simmons has said. Well, now it looks like many of the videos on the KISS site have been removed because of a copyright complaint from S'More Entertainment.
S'More Entertainment does seem to be a real company that holds the rights to music videos and movies. Still, there's no guarantee this isn't an elaborate scheme from Anonymous, which has previously launched DDoS attacks against Simmons. On the KISS site, which simply embeds YouTube clips, visitors are granted with a notice of removal due to a copyright claim. Some are even indicating that the account they are linked to has been terminated. What many of you are feeling right now, the Germans call schadenfreude.
The root of the problem here seems to be that KISS is embedding content from many accounts on YouTube. Turns out they don't own all that video, and people are starting to take notice. So YouTube has safe harbor here, but what about KISS?
Comments are closed on this article
joel96
November 11, 2010 at 11:07am
This is, uh.....bad. But not really that bad. I think what happened was the publisher, S'More, acted independently of Simmons, but probably felt safe in doing it because they had prior approval from Simmons. I don't know if it is just Simmons' videos that they took down. I do NOT think that they were ordered by Simmons to do it, because the KISS website would not have the bad links, and they would have more of a clean segue into consolidating the videos to their own site. I don't think Anonymous has anything to do with the shut downs, because they would have released a statement claiming responsibility and explaining why they did it, and what they want people to do. As for Simmons, I think he has a point. Pirates should have been acted on harshly from the get-go. And I mean PIRATES. Remixers are another story, and I'm not going to get into that because this story hasn't mentioned anything about them. YouTube's ContentID will probably start to get crawling over them too, though, despite the video-by-video nature of the shut downs. I don't know about going after kids, though, Gene. I mean, age-related bad actions are given a defense by age alone, and I'm sure there were plenty of older people you could go after with greater approval by the public. I haven't stopped thinking that it is up to the artist and their publisher to control how their works are distributed. Now, that does NOT man that removing all the videos that increase your sales is a good idea. I still think remixes are a smart, profitable business booster. That said, I can't see how allowing the original, hi-def, un-remixed version of your content to be posted for free can generate any money.
amitava
November 11, 2010 at 2:00am
Its realay a helpfull article for music lover. Thanks for sharing.
Shalbatana
November 08, 2010 at 10:47pm
If youtube allows people to externally link to posts (which it does), then by uploading, aren't you agreeing to allow others to link to your material by default? I'm not sure there's any infringement on the Kiss website for embedding video from a video sharing site as long as appropriate credit is given, which in this case should be the youtube bug (embedded by default) and a link to the source clip on youtube (in the player link by default).
As far as people posting kiss videos they don't own, why should a music video be any more distributable than a television show? If the band says "here's a copy of the video, spread it around" (like posting it on youtube), then great. But if they restrict their postings to say their own site and then post that you can't re-post the video, then it shouldnt' be allowed. Just like when they post Lost on Hulu to watch, but they don't put it on youtube to be embedded on other sites.
In any case, could the message simply be a default message when the player can't find the source material? Could all this be simply because youtube has removed the content themselves?
P.S. I agree with the others, your writing is usually spot-on, but this article was slightly confusing. No worries though. Keep up the good work and thanks!
OliverSudden
November 08, 2010 at 7:37pm
Has no one noticed in all these years that the vast vast majority of the music made by Kiss is really boring and uninspired? I suppose not.
Ghok
November 08, 2010 at 6:32pm
Simmons is part of the old guard, and it's in his best interest to keep the same business model we have for music in place, it's made him rich. For today's consumers and artists, it's outdated... and, assuming KISS did actually mistakenly infringe by linking to their own videos, here is further evidence that the system is stupid.
Tenhawk
November 08, 2010 at 4:58pm
I had to read it twice, but it is two related stories in one.
First, KISS and Simmons are rattling their sabers concerning pirates, and forced a third party site to remove their videos despite what seems to be some confusion about the rights to said videos... standard stuff really, same bullshit different tenor.
The second, more interesting part, involves KISS' own site... which apparently links to videos they don't own the rights to, and as a result of multiple complaints to Youtube those videos have begun to blink off the net, with the associated 'copyright violations' notice being delivered, this time against the KISS site itself. Amusing and, as the article points out, a clear case of schadenfraude for most of us. (The feeling you get when you enjoy someone else's misfortune.)
roninnder
November 08, 2010 at 8:01pm
It's all in there, and it's quite clear. Are you sure you read english?
Mosher
November 08, 2010 at 6:54pm
Kiss is depicting what the RIAA lawyers and other copyright lawyers have been displaying recently, namely, that the loudest voices against file-sharing are themselves guilty of the same 'crime`s'.
