Slashdot Mirror


Gene Simmons Threatens Anonymous Again and Gets DDoS'd

BussyB writes "Rather than shutting him up, the 'Operation Payback' DDoS attack on his websites only made Simmons more angry and outspoken. None of those threats seemed to bother Anonymous, however, and the group promptly launched another DDoS attack on both of Simmons' websites and rendered them inaccessible once again."

7 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Something I find interesting by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely not. Without highly knowledgable producers/engineers, most mainstream artists wouldn't be given a glance.

    When it comes to music, high production values and experience can trump talent.

  2. Re:Something I find interesting by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The largest and most successful musicians are the ones that most effectively act as employees of powerful record companies. Part of being an effective employee of those companies is believing them when they say "X is the reason why your sales are down".

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  3. Re:Internet Terrorism by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?

  4. Re:Something I find interesting by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't make sense because it isn't a reasoned position, just an emotional one. Gene Simmons has gone as far as endorsing prison rape for file sharers. That's, simply put, psychotic. It used to be I didn't buy Kiss merchandise because I didn't particularly like Kiss (and I didn't and still don't infringe their copyright either). Now, the way Mr. Simmons is talking, I don't buy Kiss merchandise because I'm concerned he's so far over the edge he'll use the money to try and get draconian revenge, far beyond any proportionate concept of justice, on some kid he elects to make an example of.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  5. Re:Something I find interesting by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Kiss was always about being corporate whores. I mean it's not about the music, it was about how fully they could sell out for more money. And if the corporate masters don't keep pushing it there's that many fewer lunchboxes and breakfast cereals sold.

  6. Love Gun by Is0m0rph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who are these clowns? Kiss? You don't know who Kiss is? No. Never heard of them. They look likeidiots to me. No, no, no, dude. These are four of the smartest guys who ever lived. They're these Jewish guys that grew up in New York, and they put on guitars and makeup to get girls, and all of their songs are about fucking! I'm listening. Seriously, this song is called Love Gun, and it's about Paul Stanley's dick and how this girl's gonna get some of his dick! Cool. I didn't know Jews could sing like that. No. No. They couldn't at the time. That's why they had to dress like clowns. This got them girls? Get this! They've been getting pussy nonstop for 30 years! They're probably fucking right now, and they're old dudes! They put makeup on, and it's all good! No shit? You pull the trigger of my Love gun You see, Ronnie? His dick is the gun!

  7. Re:Something I find interesting by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actual music is almost dead in America. As for the world, actual music is more endangered than the Panda.

    If your talking about the big labels, and the top 40 machine, then you are absolutely correct on all your points, but, luckily, this is only a very small portion of modern music. Yes, it is the most visible, and has the highest share of public consciousness, but that scene still represents a tiny minority of the music that is out there.

    Right now, in your town, there are hundreds (maybe thousands, depending on population and culture) of small bands, some of which are VERY good. Most are crap, but some of them are better than anything the major labels have churned out in years. Finding which ones are worth the time is a bit daunting (currently, in my town, we have an obnoxiously ubiquitous metal scene, which aspires to recapture the most idiotic parts of 90's metal...), but I guarantee that there is something out there that you will like.

    Thanks to the internet, major labels are largely insignificant. It is trivial to find an acquire music from small labels, or individual bands, without ever touching the ancient media dinosaurs, this is now, and not in the future. Of the last 100 or so music purchases I've made in the last 5 years, only two were from major labels, this was completely accidental, I did not have the desire to "stick it to the man". The independent music is just better, at least to my taste.

    I would recommended some bands that are awesome and have nothing to do with big labels, but taste is subjective.

    I would guess that the big labels make around 90% of the profit, but only represent around 10% (if even) of the artists out there. In ten years they will be almost completely irrelevant. Yes, they are nice for marketing, and promotion. This is generally the case made against independently distributed music around here, small bands can't go on their own because they can't afford to be Lady Gaga (whose branding efforts might rival those of CocaCola and Nike). But who cares? If a band can't become huge without marketing they don't deserve to be huge. And small labels work wonders, insteading of having 10 labels with 10,000 artists, why not have 1,000 labels with 100 artists? Smaller labels have funds for promotion, and smaller labels allow more artist control (the only thing that matters). This is how things are going to develop.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey