Warner Tells Kid Rock To Denounce File Sharing; He Denounces Warner Instead

from the file-share-away dept

While Warner Music had claimed that it was getting away from attacking fans who wanted to download, it appears that it still has a long way to go. Atlantic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, asked one of its stars, Kid Rock, to publicly denounce file sharing. Instead, Kid Rock publicly denounced Warner Music, while telling fans to download away. Atlantic came to him saying he needed to say something publicly because “people are stealing from us and stealing from you.” Rock’s response? “Wait a second, you’ve been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?” So, instead, he started spreading the opposite message: “I was telling kids – download it illegally, I don’t care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live.”

It’s for this reason that he’s also avoiding having his music go up on iTunes, because it’s based on the old model: “an old system, where iTunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don’t give it to the artists.” He’s disappointed that the recording industry has really squandered an opportunity: “So the internet was an opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money.”

Of course, he then does go a little overboard: “I don’t mind people stealing my music, that’s fine. But I think they should steal everything. You know how much money the oil companies have? If you need some gas, just go fill your tank off and drive off, they’re not going to miss it.” That, of course, is a bit of an exaggeration, though I’m sure it will be used by supporters of the old system to discredit the rest of what he has to say. But the key points remain: he recognizes that the real way to make money these days is to have more people listening to your stuff, and make the money on other business models, such as live performances — and that the record labels rely on an obsolete system that tends to make them wealthy at the expense of artists, rather than with them.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: warner music group

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Warner Tells Kid Rock To Denounce File Sharing; He Denounces Warner Instead”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
41 Comments
some old guy says:

too bad tho

its just too bad that kid rock took it too far. That part where he said “if you need gas, just steal that too”… that just demotes his whole argument into nothing other than “angry little dumbshit lashing out against the man”.

It’s good that he recognized that the industry is not trying to help the artists, but he ruined his chance to be taken seriously about it.

R. McCrea says:

Re: too bad tho

No no. He didn’t go to far. I believe it’s sarcastic. Yes, he’s allegedly smart enough to mock your demonstrated lack of intelligence (No offense, old guy, I respect you — you just missed this time.) He’s making the point that stealing gas is much more criminal than inappropriately possessing music.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Possibly deliberate

Warner may well want to create an association between ‘rebels who condone the stealing of music’ and ‘anarchists who condone the redistribution of property’, i.e. morons the both of them. This then says to kids “Ok, be a rebel, but when you get a job you’ll soon recognise how foolish you were and how right we have always been”.

The use of RIAA’s language of ‘stealing’ already smells fishy. To sanction theft indicates he either doesn’t understand the difference or is attempting to indicate there is no difference (on RIAA’s behalf).

A potential cryptoRIAAn.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Then again perhaps I meant Anarcho-Communists?

This is the trouble when the cartel continually conflates copyright infringement with property theft.

Those who see nothing wrong in ‘stealing’ music (also mistermed IP theft), though it is actually natural cultural liberty, then mistake themselves as anarcho-communists, as they start wondering if perhaps theft and property are invalid concepts altogether.

Property is fine.

It’s the suspension of the public’s liberty to privilege merchants (publishers) that isn’t fine.

Copyright isn’t a right.
Infringement isn’t theft.
Sharing isn’t stealing.

Intellectual property is still property.
Stealing and theft are still wrong.

Copyright is a suspension of liberty.
Abolishing copyright destroys privilege not property.

So, Kid Rock, rebel against your publisher’s privilege, but do not conflate that with a rejection of natural property rights.

Need it a tad simpler?

Share my music, but don’t steal it.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The constitution makes no claim that copyright or patent is a right, it merely sanctions the securing of author’s and inventor’s exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.

Copyright and patent exceed this, by extending that exclusive right beyond its natural limit, i.e. beyond the point at which the author or inventor has exclusive possession of their writings and discoveries (because the author or inventor distributed copies or published them and ended their exclusivity).

See http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=119

So the constitution does not make copyright (or patent) a right, nor would it have the power to define it as a right in any case. Rights are self-evident; they are not created by law or constitution, but observed and protected by them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The constitution makes no claim that copyright or patent is a right, it merely sanctions the securing of author’s and inventor’s exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.

So, for you, a “right” is only something which is natural. So you would argue from nature. So therefore, killing a man for walking onto my property is a right … as that response is most certainly “natural.”

Rights are self-evident; they are not created by law or constitution, but observed and protected by them.

First, laws establish balance for the greater good, realizing that in order to achieve that balance, some “self-evident” rights must be curtailed to protect the whole.

Second, many people seem to have no problem recognizing the ability to have a say over what happens to the things you create as a “self-evident” right. That you don’t shows how that “self-evident” may not be as self-evident as you believe.

Third, what seems completely natural to me is that I help someone continue to do things that I find value in; i.e., this guy does X, I like/need/want X, so if I want him to do more of X, I should give him something in exchange so he doesn’t have to stop doing X and go start a farm or something (cause we all have natural needs, too).

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

* Seek culture, but not at the expense of liberty
* Seek liberty, but not at the expense of truth
* Seek truth, but not at the expense of privacy
* Seek privacy, but not at the expense of life
* Seek life, and enjoy free culture.

Natural rights are defined by natural rights, e.g. the natural right to privacy is ‘curtailed’ as you put it by the natural right to life.

Laws do not create rights or determine the balance between them, but arbitrate that balance.

Copyright is by no means a self-evident right. This was recognised at the time the privilege was created, however it was given the benefit of the doubt as potentially more valuable to society than the cultural liberty it suspended.

I wholly support a free and fair market in cultural works (exchange of art for money) and the protection of everyone’s intellectual property rights.

To fully achieve that protection requires the abolition of privileges that suspend those rights, i.e. copyright and patent.

Jason says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I’m still listening, Crosbie … but I’m not there yet. Thanks for your continued efforts (and links to helpful resources).

I agree with this:

I wholly support a free and fair market in cultural works (exchange of art for money) and the protection of everyone’s intellectual property rights.

… and I want this to be true:

To fully achieve that protection requires the abolition of privileges that suspend those rights, i.e. copyright and patent.

… but I don’t yet understand how it is true.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The public’s natural right to copy was suspended to grant publishers the privilege of determining when a work may be copied.

‘Copyright’ is the name of the privilege and it is predictable that those who created it wouldn’t be careful to avoid it being confused as a natural right.

So, I can’t agree that ‘copyright’ is the right of those it is granted to.

The natural ‘right to copy’ however, is of course a right when applied to one’s own creations or property (including someone else’s creations that one has purchased or been given).

jamey smith says:

Re: Possibly deliberate

now he has a beer,I just spent a hour trying to find afforadable tickets to see his concert in NC ,I am from Mi and used to be in the same circle of friends durin the “danceopolis”days,then i married a Marine ,i always said to my husband if he comes we are going to the concert,he is so down to earth stiill,well after trying to get a decent seat,all of the tickets are bout then resold for 3 times the price which we cant afford,you have to pay to leave a comment on his web site,when my husband comes home from leave we are better off sitting in the yard and we deff will not be drinking his beer geese did i ever think wrong,all this time i thought he supported the millitary and a Maine can not even buy a concert ticket or see his my space page with out paying a fan fare! thank you for listining,Jamey smith,Jacksonville NC Camp Lejeune

smarty pants says:

Re: Re:

He stole it? That’s the beauty of Kid….”sample anything I want and never get sued…”

Why? Becuase he, singlehandedly, has brought back kick ass music that is so good it gets into your veins.

Glad he stood up to Warner. Labels are screwing artists and the public and have been for years. I just wish Kid would use iTunes for convenience. I sometimes just want to download a song to my ipod when I don’t have his cd’s around.

And, we have bought multiple copies of each of Kid Rock’s cd’s, one for me, one for my husband, one for my oldest child….his music’s the best! And, it’s funny because I’m sure you’re thinking we’re some red neck family or some uneducated hicks. Ha. If you only knew! We’re a highly targeted marketing demographic…lots of education, lots of cash…..funny how people stereotype, isn’t it?

Dirk Belligerent (profile) says:

Re: He did NOT steal the music.

Fitting considering he stole the music for his new single from Warren Zevon’s “Werewolves of London”

BZZZZT!!! WRONG ANSWER!!!!

Since I BOUGHT THE CD, I got this thing called a “booklet” which has these things called “liner notes” with lyrics and writing and musician credits and for “All Summer Long” it clearly credits the writers of “Werewolves of London” and “Sweet Home Alabama.” Nowadays, labels demand that every fraking identifiable sample and interpolation be cleared and licensed lest they get sued down the line. You can quibble as to how creative Kid Rock may or not be by doing this mashing up, but there’s no question that he didn’t “steal” the music.

Yeah, he put his foot in his mouth about stealing gas, but the core points – that the labels and retailers claim the lions share for themselves and screw the artists whose interests they claim to protect – are still valid.

E-Dogg says:

Re: Re: He did NOT steal the music.

He’s another example of the lowering of the bar of pop music that’s been happening over the last god knows HOW many years. I was in a stupid cover band mashing those two songs together for YEARS… he’s no genius, he’s simply taken the ideas of others and profited from it. He’s like a rock version of Madonna… nothing remotely original, simply a bad copy of what came before. Madonna took stuff already going on in the clubs and passed it off as her own… insanely profiting all the while. The original Lynyrd Skynyrd was a very tight band of actual musicians that wrote their own material… thankfully before the days of sampling the REAL work of others. And FYI, they actual wrote a few tunes other than “Sweet Home Alabama,” “Free Bird” and “What’s your Name.” Contrary to what FM radio or GuitarHero would have you believe. God give us a legitimately talented rock artist that isn’t simply a poseur like Kid Rock or Lenny Kravitz. Retread hacks the two of them…

ASDF says:

Mentioning gas is kind of funny ...

Performing live to make a living and stealing gas in the same statement is kind of funny considering there are a lot of bands not touring this summer because of the price of gas. Can’t make money because of the record labels and illegal downloads. Can’t make money because your tour bus get horrible gas mileage.

Angel says:

Bottom line people

If you continue to download music without paying for it, there will be no reason for artist to continue making the music we love.

New Artists can not survive without getting paid.

Record stores will be non existant.

And regarding “stealing Gas” Have you people lost the concept of Sarcasm? Jesus!

DanC says:

Re: Re:

If you continue to download music without paying for it, there will be no reason for artist to continue making the music we love.

Your “bottom line” presupposes that the currently predominant business model will remain the status quo, which hardly seems likely.

Some artists are finding methods that allow them to create music without having to directly sell the music, while others are attempting to rally against change.

While certainly illegal, unauthorized downloading is an economic response to the infinite nature of digital goods. Some artists are recognizing this fact, and adapting accordingly, while others remain committed to the present model.

As has been discussed multiple times here, there are plenty of other ways for an artist to make money rather than direct sales of the music.

New Artists can not survive without getting paid.

And nobody is saying they shouldn’t get paid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Burried in the bottom of that article, Garth Brooks makes a point that he’s not on iTunes because he believes in making albums, and that each album is a work in itself and shouldn’t be cut up. His example is that “friends In Low Places” just isn’t the same without “Wolves” or “Wild Horses.”

Which is funny, because I’ve heard Friends but not Wolves or Horses. Now, I think he might have a point — he’s the artist, he knows the message he’s trying to put forth — but the fact is that FANS want the music, and fans will like some songs and not others. Fans are the ones who want things piecemeal, and iTunes is just giving them what they want.

Charlie says:

Business Opertunity!

Hi!

I have gone through your website and I take this opportunity to introduce my
company Axill which is one of the fastest growing global online advertising
network. Considering your delivery capacity, I see great potential in
partnering with you to monetize your online inventory with us. We work with
top advertisers across the world who are always looking for international
traffic.

We have the most flexible, convenient and fastest payment modes ( paypal,
moneybooker and check) and the payment being done on weekly basis.

Please get back to me at your earliest convenience. We are standing by at your
convenience to help you monetize your inventory. We can be reached in
confidence at on the below co-ordinates.

Please follow the link below to register with us.

http://www.axill.com/NewCPM/CPMPublisherRegistration.aspx?ref=Charlie

Thanks and Regards,
Charlie
charlie@axill.com
Sr.Biz Dev Manager
http://www.axill.com

Peter Wells (profile) says:

The TuneCore alternative

I wish Mr. Rock (I’m sure all his friends call him “Kid”) knew about our company. It doesn’t solve what he perceives as the store problem (iTunes is still going to hold on to its percentage), but TuneCore will put your music into iTunes and not take a PENNY of your sales. In fact, all we charge is $0.99 a track, one time, delivery charge, plus $0.99 per store (one time, for the whole album) and only $19.98 a year maintenance and storage. That’s less than the cost of guitar strings, and you keep your masters, your copyright, and all the cash the stores pay out. iTunes, AmazonMP3, eMusic, we deliver to all the big hitters.

Anyone wanna tell Mr. Rock? Warners already knows all about us. 🙂

–Peter
peter@tunecore.com

Holly says:

Kid Rock

Come on people. Steal everything? Yeah Kid Rock is in your face with how he feels about things, but do you really truly think he would insite his fans to go to a gas station and drive off, especially a young kid? I have seen the PSA with Kid Rock. If you want to take it seriously go right ahead. When I looked at it I thought he was making it sound ridiculous on purpose, like “Go Ahead and steal everything, how much sense does that make?” I like most of his music, but I don’t download things, whether I can or not. So, if I am wrong and he really did mean for us as his fans to wreak havoc, well everyone better watch the news ’cause it looks to get interesting. As for me, I am going to go mow the lawn with my earphones on and listen to some Kid Rock.

Debby says:

Kid/stealing, etc.

I love Kid Rock, but artists who constantly bellow this nonsense are extremely disingenuous.

He did not “steal” the Zevon & Skynrd music, he not only licensed them, he paid the publishing and had to give co-write to Zevon and the other writers.

I notice his song (and all his others) are all filed up in BMI – why? so he can collect his writer & publisher share!

Gee, Kid, why bother – just give it all away for free to everyone!

Artists like this know full well that he can (now) afford to give away his downloads as a promotional loss leader to sell concert tickets, merch, etc., while promoting this attitude completely screws those who make their living as songwriters – not to mention the thousands of record company employees who work their butts off to make him into a star to begin with.

BTW, driving off with “free” gas wouldn’t harm Exxon – they’ve already made their $$ charging thousands to the gas station owner who is now out all that money, as well as the few pennies in profit that he would have made off the sale!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...