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."

Comments

Something I find interesting

[Pojut]

It always seems like it's the largest and most sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.

Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...

Re:Something I find interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed you didn't say "the most talented musicians"

Re:Something I find interesting

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Sockatume]

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".

Re:Something I find interesting

[shadowrat]

or is it the shrewdest businessmen who become the largest and most successful musicians? Kiss was a business. It was about marketing and maximizing profits. Of course the people at the head of that machine are concerned about every angle they could pursue and every dime they could possibly get.

Re:Something I find interesting

[biryokumaru]

Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway?

That's not true! They're also paid quite well by the recording industry to speak out against piracy!

Re:Something I find interesting

[Pojut]

Again though, the amount of money earned from album sales is piss compared to everything else (merchandising, touring, etc.) Why be so vocal about something that doesn't bring in much money, yet risks pissing off your fans...you know, the people that buy your merchandise and go to your concerts.

Just doesn't make sense.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Stregano]

You mean like how gangster rappers talk about killing and stealing, but when you steal their music, they get angry. I just think it is amusing. Daniel Tosh said it better, but I can't track down exactly what he said

Re:Something I find interesting

[xednieht]

Damn right, musicians need to stop being so lazy and get out there and perform. Does the guy that designed or built your car get royalties every time you get in it? Does the guy that designed or made your clothes get royalties every time you wear them?

Nothing against artists, but they really need to get out there and perform more. Earn a living like everyone else you lazy bums.

I wonder if Simmons pays royalties to the designers and builders of his website?

Re:Something I find interesting

[jayme0227]

I think a lot of the most successful musicians end up starting their own labels. Simmons certainly did, as referenced in the article. This gives them a stake in the game and even more reason to be anti-piracy.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Wowsers]

Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

Re:Something I find interesting

[elrous0]

Nonsense! With Kiss it used to be about the music, man! Well, that and the lunchboxes, posters, cartoon shows, movies, guest appearances, fast-food tie-ins, TV specials, KISS Army fan club, clothing line, Halloween costumes, makeup line, books, toys, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm forgetting about. But the music was in there somewhere, I'm sure of it.

Re:Something I find interesting

[codegen]

Actually quite a few of them(such as Mr. Simmons) go on to be producers and/or label owners and discover how much more money there is on the other side of the microphone. Of course they are much more vehement against piracy then. However, the public tends to remember them as the musician, when really they are speaking as the label owner.

Re:Something I find interesting

[John Pfeiffer]

All the more ironic given that this is probably because of his son's blatant plagiarism of popular Japanese comics.

But while you're on the subject, I've always found Metallica's opposition of filesharing to be most amusing, since it's widely understood that they gained initial popularity from the circulation of bootlegs of their live performances. (In fact, if I remember the documentary I saw correctly, this bit of information may have come directly from their own mouths.)

Re:Something I find interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

autotune

Re:Something I find interesting

[Monkeedude1212]

It's in their best interest to keep the labels happy though. Sometimes the private jet, the pool, the mercedes, aren't actually owned by the musicians (though they'll say that they are on MTV Cribs) but are actually loaned out by the labels so that the band can live the high life while they're on their streak of popularity. You make the label money, they take care of their top money bags to keep them with the label. You fall off the charts? Want to switch labels? Well they're going to repo that car and give it to the next big shot in town.

So when the largest and most successful musicians seem to be slaming their FANS because they want to enjoy the music, it's because the record sales are keeping them in the Hollywood lifestyle. Perhaps you might be unaware of this, but sometimes when you sign up with a label, you can't actually go on tour without the labels permission. Then they've got you by the balls where you can't make money unless they let you.

Re:Something I find interesting

[ArhcAngel]

Gene Simmons has always been a businessman first a performer second and an artist a distant third. He has stated in interviews he had ideas for merchandising KISS paraphernalia long before they had a record deal. It's not surprising at all that his instinct is to sue anything that hurts his enterprise.

Re:Something I find interesting

[MozeeToby]

Since their last album they operate their own label (Kiss Records), the same is true of a lot of the big name, super successful, anti-piracy bands. Considering that is only one of their many albums though, it's probably true that they make more money touring, but if they self publish another couple of albums that might not be the case.

Re:Something I find interesting

[patro]

Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway?

I'd rephrase it: Don't they make enough money anyway?

If someone is that rich does it really matter if not everyone buys his records? Isn't the free publicity worth more than earning even more money?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Pojut]

That's pretty much the case with me as well. There are a TON of "bedroom" and "local studio" musicians out there, putting out original and interesting music. I see no reason to line the pockets of rich fatcats who throw crumbs at the people that earn them money.

I'd much rather support only the musician.

Re:Something I find interesting

[vlm]

Well, that and the lunchboxes, posters, cartoon shows, movies, guest appearances, fast-food tie-ins, TV specials, KISS Army fan club, clothing line, Halloween costumes, makeup line, books, toys, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm forgetting about.

Yeah, you forgot the KISS branded casket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_Kasket

Now if someone replicated on a 3-d printer, then ole Gene would be rightly annoyed. But copying the music? He doesn't lose any real money from that.

Re:Something I find interesting

[bws111]

Does the guy who designed your car have to go drive a racecar every weekend so he gets paid? Does the guy who designed your clothes have to go work at WalMart so he gets paid?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Artifakt]

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.

Re:Something I find interesting

[jbeach]

You're right. The music was in Ace Frehley and Peter Criss. Who then got fired.

Re:Something I find interesting

[SuricouRaven]

I like to imagine the executive from marketing who gets the job of telling the producers that the market research says songs about beating up your girlfriend will make the most money.

Re:Something I find interesting

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Something I find interesting

[oldhack]

Bullshit. That guy is a has-been attention whore. It's best to simply ignore the senile old dude.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Sprouticus]

The age of mass comsumption of music is coming to an end (sort of). Many people still comsume from American Idol or Pop radio, but a growing group like the parent above and myself are becoming more focused on smaller acts, nniche genres, and local artists.

Perhaps this is just me getting older, but I personally have completely revamped how I digest music in the last 10 years, and am now far more focused on bands most people have never heard of (I dont mean this in a pretentious hipster kind of way, just in a 'this is what appeals to me' kind of way)

There will always be Pop music. The quesiton is how much it will decline and how much other options will become available.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Microlith]

Sure as hell wasn't computers. Gene Simmons didn't have a computer growing up and look what happened to him.

Buy your kids a Banana Jr. 6000 today!

Re:Something I find interesting

[chomsky68]

My sentiments exactly. Except, perhaps that I go on Tuesdays

Re:Something I find interesting

[grub]

They tried autotune with Lemmy. The autotune box exploded, killing 4 in the sound booth.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Runaway1956]

I applaud everyone who finds their own niche. How many people think about the culture that has been lost in America? I'm not talking about music alone. Accents and dialects, music, local cuisine, even costume in some cases. I miss the days of my youth, in a city divided almost evenly into four parts. There was the "white" part of town, the black part, the Italian part, and the Slovak (Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, and a few odds and ends). Each part of town SMELLED different at dinner time. You didn't even have to think about where you were - just smell the cooking. Today? No one even cooks. Everyone orders Domino's or goes to Micky D's. Support what is left of culture - we're losing it fast, and the new generation(s) have no idea what they are missing.

Re:Something I find interesting

[McNihil]

If the musicians trust their record companies then I would argue they are in deep sh*t already. It is far too simple to do some Hollywood accounting on the thing and say that all the proceeds went to support everything else but the musician. I for one wouldn't trust any numbers coming from any of the record companies... not even SEC filings... now maybe if they had to do per artist as if the artist is a company by them self then maybe we would get closer to reality. However it will not change so this is all moot. The interesting part is that Simmons is a very shrewd business man and that he is promulgating some party line indicated maybe that he has finally done something stupid in a business sense. For him this must be a lose lose situation, not that I care.

Re:Something I find interesting

[squizzar]

I think having been paid he will continue to design more cars or clothes in order to get paid again. I've been designing stuff all day today, and I got paid for it, just like I did yesterday and the day before. If I stop designing stuff tomorrow I'm fairly certain I'll stop getting paid...

Arguably I'm designing the wrong stuff, but to me it seems that 'art' is the only industry that gets away with being so far up it's own arse as to assume that everything these creative types create should be paid for by society forever. I'm willing to bet the guys who designed the Statue of Liberty, or the Viaduc de Millau Bridge, or the Aston Martin Vantage don't get paid every time someone looks at their work. It's not that I don't think they should get paid at all, it's just that they seem to expect to be paid regardless. I can't afford to buy a BMW M5, and at the moment I can't afford to buy £15 CD albums. If a friend had a car and lent it to me I wouldn't say no, and I certainly wouldn't expect to give BMW a royalty for the privilege. For some reason though if I borrow a friends CD and listen to it I should be paying someone though. If I sit in a pub listening to the radio on on a personal stereo that's fine, but if the pub has the radio playing they're supposed to pay royalties? If it was all about the music then they'd just play it. These guys are just like the bankers complaining about not getting bonuses when the economy collapses. We all could do with earning some more money, most of us seem to think we should work for it...

Re:Something I find interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I don't buy Kiss music/merchandise because I am no longer a 14-year-old child.

Re:Something I find interesting

[imakemusic]

Most bands make a loss when touring. That's why they usually do it when they've got a new album to promote. Merchandise is where the real money is.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Bing Tsher E]

Arguably I'm designing the wrong stuff, but to me it seems that 'art' is the only industry that gets away with being so far up it's own arse as to assume that everything these creative types create should be paid for by society forever.

You don't have to pay them anything.

In fact you can completely shun them, and pay them nothing.

But you need to get a clue. 'Shun' means you don't listen to their music or pass copies of it around.

Re:Something I find interesting

[holiggan]

That's the exact, pinpoint moment when they switch sides from the "let's be rebellious and brake a window" attitude to the "that window is expensive and I'm gonna sue your for all you got"...

Really? Take people's homes and cars over piracy?! Wish for jail rape for copying songs?! I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it (if?! I'm yet to meet a teen nowadays that doesn't do it).

Or perhaps, maybe, that's his exact position regarding drug abuse... How's that? Take the cars and homes and wish for jail-rape, for all the people caught with drugs, or using drugs, or selling drugs, or enjoying drugs. Now that's a crime with *real* consequences for other people, stuff that people might actually *die* from. I bet the "big rock star" agrees with me.

Re:Something I find interesting

[TheLink]

Gene Simmons has always been a businessman first

I wonder if he could put ads on his website in response.

Some might do direct hits bypassing the ads, but maybe enough might not :).

Re:Something I find interesting

[geekmux]

Nonsense! With Kiss it used to be about the music, man! Well, that and the lunchboxes, posters, cartoon shows, movies, guest appearances, fast-food tie-ins, TV specials, KISS Army fan club, clothing line, Halloween costumes, makeup line, books, toys, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm forgetting about. But the music was in there somewhere, I'm sure of it.

The only real difference 30 years ago was at least the music was good and the voices were real. Other than that, your irony (and Hanna Montana) have only proven one thing; same shit, different decade.

Re:Something I find interesting

[andrewagill]

Part of being an effective employee of those companies is not believing them, but stating publicly that you believe them. These companies don't care if it's goodthink or doublespeak, so long as you say the right things.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Darth]

Metallica encouraged tape trading of their shows and their demo tapes. Between songs during their sets, they told audiences to share their music. That is exactly how they got their record deal. They really didn't start giving a crap about people sharing their music until the whole napster thing. Even then, I think it's just Lars. I'm not convinced the rest care.

Lars was always kind of an ass. He's a crafty business man, though.

Re:Something I find interesting

[yurtinus]

Trying to find the mod for "Truth that nobody really wants to hear" but it's not on the drop down list... Seriously, how many of us geeks shun and boycott Apple or Microsoft or whomever simply because that company (or its customers) have their heads up their arses? It's the principle of the thing, dagnabbit, we can *do* this!

Re:Something I find interesting

[riegel]

You see performing is work and they are bemoaning the work. So they slam their fans for not buying more of the stuff that requires no work.

Re:Something I find interesting

[ceoyoyo]

A lot of the largest and most successful musicians also own record labels. You'll notice one of Simmon's websites that was taken down was SimmonsRecords.com.

Re:Something I find interesting

[MyLongNickName]

10 bits of music

Now that is one hell of a compression algorithm!

Re:Something I find interesting

[Jaysyn]

That's just a RIAA vanity label so they can die in a fire for all I care.

Re:Something I find interesting

[nebular]

Not in the case of Mr. Simmons. He's got his hands in every pocket of every person attached to his music. He hates piracy and filesharing, not so much because it hurts his bottom line, but that he doesn't have control over it and can manipulate it to better his image and make more money.

Re:Something I find interesting

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Me too. I haven't purchased an RIAA or MPAA licensed product since 2001.

I still go to concerts, buy CDs off of artists who aren't members (the list is increasing), and pay a fair bit of money for music.

Just not to those assholes.

Re:Something I find interesting

[formfeed]

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,

Following that argument it would be really unethical to buy a Kiss CD. Good thing you never liked Kiss to begin with. Otherwise, if you really wanted to listen to Kiss, you would have very few options:

1. Surpress your passion for music and suffer. -But you know it's for a good cause.
   Great, the suffering will be a sign that you're doing the right thing. (As long as you're Catholic or Jewish.)
2. Copy the music illegally.
   Great, you break the law for a reason, fight the system. (And also save some money while doing it.)
3. Buy only used CDs on yard sales and flea markets.
   Great, you beat the system, you crafty anti-capitalist. (And support pop-culture addicted teens so they can buy more stuff)

Re:Something I find interesting

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Gene Simmons has gone as far as endorsing prison rape for file sharers. That's, simply put, psychotic.

No, that's actually just heavy metal talk. As someone who has been involved in the punk, metal, and hardcore scenes for quite awhile, I can attest to that fact that metal-heads talk in these kinds of extremes pretty regularly. Saying the most outlandish, controversial, politically incorrect thing that comes to mind is pretty much par for the course of anyone speaking in the metal, punk, or hardcore languages. Hell...the Misfits wrote a song about raping mothers and killing babies....soooo, yeah, prison rape was actually a pretty tame threat coming from a band like Kiss.

Re:Something I find interesting

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Today? No one even cooks. Everyone orders Domino's or goes to Micky D's. Support what is left of culture

That's nonsense, or, at least, anecdotal. Here on the central coast of California, if it's a nice evening out, you can jog through my community and, depending on which part of town you are in, you can smell the rednecks BBQing hamburgers, the Mexicans BBQing carne asada, or all of the suburbanites cooking their latest Stoffer's stir fry packet. Plenty of people cook. There is plenty of culture left in America. I don't know why the area you grew up in is changing, but out here on the West Coast, in the smaller towns and cities, that is very much not the case.

Re:Something I find interesting

[ZeRu]

That's 'cause most talented musicians usually aren't in it for the money.

Re:Something I find interesting

[infinite9]

Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

Wouldn't it be great if artists became popular because they were good?

Re:Something I find interesting

[mapuche]

Kiss performed in Mexico a few weeks ago. Newspapers reported they sent people from the staff to buy memorabilia or "unofficial" products from street vendors. They don't seem to care that much about the little man making a few bucks from their name.

Re:Something I find interesting

[l0b0]

Yeah, but have you seen the executable?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Oligonicella]

"Creating abundant goods puts one in a different kind of market than creating scarce goods."

Why, because you want it free?

Re:Something I find interesting

[FatRichie]

>> "The age of mass comsumption of music is coming to an end"

I'd have to disagree with this. With sites like Last.FM and Pandora getting more and more popular, not to mention how most radio stations are streaming their broadcasts on the web, I think the mass consumption has just changed. People are starting to tolerate ads (and even paying for premium subscriptions) more because the medium is convenient, even more convenient than popping in a CD.

Re:Something I find interesting

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

Do you think this is the 20th century or what?

Re:Something I find interesting

[jason.sweet]

Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

Wow! You just summed up Gene Simmons entire career in eight words.
I have seen this story 3 times in 2 days. Who's pwning who?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Our four ... no ... Amongst our triumphs ... Amongst the aspects which allow us to triumph ... are such elements as marketing, high production values ... I'll come in again.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Moryath]

Wow, you really don't know how this works in the real world, do you?

In the real world, anyone with actual talent quickly gets weeded out. Next goes actual production experience, in favor of mastering the album way too fucking loud so that everything clips out (yeah, looking at you Metallica, you fucking tone-deaf retards).

Next, if you don't have "the body" or "the look", forget it. Shitney Spears and the teenybopper whores get millions despite being worthless and talentless, because the marketing machines pump all their crap out, put it in boxes, and sell to brainless, clueless idiots.

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

Re:Something I find interesting

[pak9rabid]

Don't they make most of their money by performing dozes of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...

I'd imagine the more experience and clout a band has, the sweeter the contracts are for them (as far as money they see from record sales).

Re:Something I find interesting

[hesiod]

No, because that's how natural, unrestrained economics works.

Re:Something I find interesting

[hesiod]

That's the exact, pinpoint moment when they switch sides

Normally you are right, but not in this case. Gene Simmons was never in it for the music. Right from the start, it was a business venture to him (y'know, showBUSINESS) -- it was always about the money.

Re:Something I find interesting

[davev2.0]

Does the guy that designed or built your car get royalties every time you get in it?

No, but the manufacturer, who paid the designer and builder (work for hire) do get paid every time a car (which is an output copy of the design and manufacturing process) is sold

Does the guy that designed or made your clothes get royalties every time you wear them?

No, but the manufacture who paid the designer and maker (work for hire) do get paid every time someone buys the clothes (which is an output copy of the design and creation process).

So, why shouldn't the people who paid for the "work for hire" design and creation of music be paid every time a copy of the music, AKA an output copy of the design and creation process, is created?

Re:Something I find interesting

[MonsterTrimble]

I second that. Where I live (Winnipeg, Canada) there is a huge Asian population as well as every other ethnicity under the sun. And it all intermingles - at any family or work function you can have pretty much everything from Chicken balls to Octopi sauted in wine. It's pretty damn awesome, IMHO.

Re:Something I find interesting

[bws111]

All consumer goods, whether it be art, cars, electronics, furniture, clothing, or anything else, is produced on spec. On spec means that the costs of producing it (including design, facilities, equipment, overhead, materials, etc) is recouped on every single 'copy' of the thing sold. Every car sold has earned some money towards the design of the car. As long as that car is sold, the design of the car is earning profits. Same with every shirt sold. Same with every CD sold. Now, in many cases (cars for instance) the cost of actually producing the physical item far outweighs the portion of money that goes to paying for the design, but the design cost is there nevertheless.

Now, you say you are designing stuff and getting paid. All that means is that your employer has effectively taken a loan against his future profits and paid you with that money. HE is still going to get paid for every copy of the thing that you designed that is sold, which will be used to pay back the loan he used to pay you, and hopefully also earn some profits. You are lucky, you get all your money now rather than having to wait a potentially long time to get paid. If you work for a good company, and the value of your work exceeds projections, you may be paid even more money as part of a bonus or profit-sharing incentive. Regardless of whether or not you earn more in the future, ALL of the money you earned comes from sales, either actual or expected.

As far comparisons to the Statue of Liberty, etc, that is just stupid. The people who designed and built the Statue of Liberty were hired to do that. The money to pay them came from the government. The Statue of Liberty was never intended to earn money. Same with your other examples. However, there are bridges that were built with private money. And guess what? The owners still expect to be paid every time someone uses the bridge, even if it was build 100 years ago.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Theoboley]

See, what i heard is, that it was his mole that exploded, killing 4 in the sound booth.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Omestes]

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.

Re:Something I find interesting

[bws111]

He got paid based on EXPECTED FUTURE sales of the car he designed. The manufacturer (the people who paid him) will get that money back on the sale of EVERY car they ACTUALLY sell. If they sell more cars than they expected they get to keep the extra money as profits. The only difference is: do I get my money all at once NOW, or do I get it as the items are actually sold. If I get my money now, whoever paid me gets to keep all the profits. If I get paid when things are sold, I get to keep the money. Of course, if I get paid later, and my product doesn't sell well, it is me who is losing out. It is amazing the number of idiots who can't grasp these simple concepts.

Re:Something I find interesting

[cayenne8]

"That's pretty much the case with me as well. There are a TON of "bedroom" and "local studio" musicians out there, putting out original and interesting music. I see no reason to line the pockets of rich fatcats who throw crumbs at the people that earn them money."

So, where do you find these new musicians? Where do you find the TIME to find them?

:)

I mean...hell, I live in New Orleans...places play music down here, but during the week, I don't have the time to go out. I work a real job and try to hit the gym. Music in places here starts at 11pm at the EARLIEST it seems, I'm getting old and am usually in bed at 9pm or so (get up a bit after 5am to hit the gym).

I've often heard "well, its on the internet...stream music...etc". Well, everywhere I work at...networks are secured, no streaming on work computers.

I am trying, though to do a little in my iPhone...and starting to try to listen to Pandora a bit. I'm still a bit lost on how to find things I really like, modern bluesy guitar driven rock. I know you can punch in a led zeppelin, but that's what it plays, and I own all their stuff.

Any suggestions on channels to look for? Anything else out there free besides Pandora on the iPhone?

I do want to listen to new music, find the good artists...and do prefer good live music, but whew...when you're over 25yrs (I can only imagine how hard it gets when you have wife and kidlets too)...hard to find it, and hard to see it with it starting so damned late.

Does live music start earlier with ya'll live?

Re:Something I find interesting

[corbettw]

I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it (if?! I'm yet to meet a teen nowadays that doesn't do it).

Clearly you've never watched "Gene Simmons' Family Jewels". He's got two kids, both aspiring musicians/artists, themselves.

Re:Something I find interesting

[hitmark]

As they say around my part of the world (not that it will translate well) "14 is a state, not a age".

Absolutists terms is something one see in young teens (seriously, i keep hearing "hate" being used when "dislike" would more correctly capture the emotion someone have about something) and religious fanatics, meaning that Mr. Simmons have never grown out of the teen state or have become fanatical about the recording industries continued existence.

Re:Something I find interesting

[mcgrew]

Neither did I, and he's even older than me. See Growing up with computers; computers grew up with ME (and I wasn't even in Soviet Russia).

Hell, I was in South East Asia in the Air Force when the Altair came out. I was thirty when the IBM-PC was released. I did, however, build an analog computer in the 7th grade (it actually worked, too).

But I'm a nerd and he's not. Computers have nothing to do with it.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Oqnet]

actually on that note you brought up something I had completely forgot about. He does have 2 kids... this is what his son Nick did recently.. http://www.squidoo.com/nick-simmons-art-thief http://www.penciljack.com/forum/showthread.php?101682-Nick-Simmons-Incarnate-swipes-Tite-Kubo-s-Bleach&highlight=simmons thought someone here might find that interesting....

Re:Something I find interesting

[AlamedaStone]

Our four ... no ... Amongst our triumphs ... Amongst the aspects which allow us to triumph ... are such elements as marketing, high production values ... I'll come in again.

You just blew my mind. "Cardinal Fang! Read the charges...."

Thanks =)

Re:Something I find interesting

[mcgrew]

How's that? Take the cars and homes and wish for jail-rape, for all the people caught with drugs, or using drugs, or selling drugs, or enjoying drugs. Now that's a crime with *real* consequences for other people

Selling certain drugs has consequenses for other people, but OTOH a runner is little different than a heroin junkie. Heroin only works becsuse it fits the brain's endorphin receptors and gives an almost identical high. However, I much prefer heroin junkies to runners, because the junkies don't run out from behind a FedEx truck right in front of my car. How about the people selling the drug that has more overdose deaths than all other drugs combined -- alcohol? Jack Daniels should be in prison? They tried that, its illegality caused gang wars and massive death, just like the current day drug prohibition.

Your drug use doesn't affect me at all. Your "pirating" my work may affect me, but it will likely be in a positive way; nobody ever went broke from piracy, but lots of talented artists have had to get real jobs because of obscurity. Piracy sells art.

Re:Something I find interesting

[2obvious4u]

Yes he has kids. His kids are even worse than file sharers. His kids copy other peoples work and sell it as their own.

Source.

You can also do a Google search for Nick Simmons plagiarism and you'll get lots more on the story.

Re:Something I find interesting

[ZFox]

Or a really short song! ;)

Re:Something I find interesting

[cayenne8]

"If the musicians trust their record companies then I would argue they are in deep sh*t already. "

Kinda make you miss the likes of Peter Grant.

THAT guy...knew how to negotiate!!

Re:Something I find interesting

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Care to ad a link to recommendations to all that? :)

Re:Something I find interesting

[icebraining]

But now instead of getting a dozen stations playing the same paid by the publishers, they can choose what they want to hear; they can choose the genre, they can skip tracks, they can make playlists, they can listen to anything even if it's not the artist that belongs to that large label who paid millions in publicity.

Re:Something I find interesting

[ShanghaiBill]

As far comparisons to the Statue of Liberty, etc, that is just stupid. The people who designed and built the Statue of Liberty were hired to do that.

No they weren't. They were unpaid volunteers.

The money to pay them came from the government.

No it didn't. Funding for the Statue of Liberty came from private sources.

Re:Something I find interesting

[bws111]

OK, I stand corrected on that. However, it does not change the point. The Statue of Liberty is free to look at because the creators wanted it that way.

Re:Something I find interesting

[cayenne8]

"Since their last album they operate their own label (Kiss Records)..."

You mean KISS made an album after Destroyer????

Re:Something I find interesting

[rgviza]

Often the talent is supplied by the producer to the "artist". Sometimes they bring in other talent to make the song work, but at least someone on the record can sing or it won't sell. There has to be some talent thrown in with the production values and experience. Forget about engineers. There hasn't been a good mix in pop music in a long time. No one's cared about a good mix since Quincy Jones was in his prime. It's full tilt 20:1 crunchy ass limiting slammed to the ceiling on everything. Everything sounds like shit in pop music now. As long as it's LOUD record companies like it. If it's not, they'll make the mastering engineer ruin it so it sounds like everything else. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Sometimes you can still sell the pig, but things are always easier if you are dealing with someone that can sing. Regardless of what you think of pop divas, most of them have "that something" that sells records. It's not always classical singing talent. Sometimes it's 90% attitude, a gimmick(GaGa), a great ass and tits(most), good lyrics(Pink, Amy Winehouse), or some combination... There's always something there, even if it's only a hook, using B.o.B... Airplanes as a perfect example. Without Hayley Williams on that hook that song would be nothing. You'd have never heard it. The rest of the song is absolutely awful. B.o.B sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, like he's rapping through a mouth full of dirt into a megaphone. Ditto for his other hit "nothin on you". Saved by the hook. He should fire himself, get a real rapper, and bring in outside talent like he does for himself. He'd have mega hits a la puff daddy then. He is his own worst enemy. Hell of a producer tho. Gotta give him that. He succeeds in spite of himself. That ain't easy to pull off. There's still talent there in his hits tho. Even though it's someone else's vocal ability carrying his lack of same. His lyrics are great though. He should just let someone else rap. There has to be something there to work with. I don't give a shit what anyone says, you can't sell someone that can't sing (or rap) without some sort of angle, great lyrics, and/or other artist with talent to carry the weight. Without fail the ones with long successful careers also have great pipes (mariah carey etc) or can at least dance (madonna/brittany spears). Talent and/or work ethic goes an awful long way and can keep a career going long after the first hit gets played out.

Re:Something I find interesting

[KDR_11k]

The big musicians get paid a lot. I guess that's necessary to keep "rock star" popular as a dream job and bring in the masses of desperate musicians that will work for table scraps because they hope to be one of the big ones one day.

Re:Something I find interesting

[KDR_11k]

I wouldn't call missing out on music you like "suffering".

Re:Something I find interesting

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Maybe you can't recommend specific bands, but can you recommend any particular site/service/method for finding said bands? You know, "I like band X, particularly this album and stuff that sounds like it. What can you recommend?"

Re:Something I find interesting

[JustSomeProgrammer]

So does a music composer that doesn't perform due to stage fright have a right to make profit from music he writes if he creates new music every year?

The comparison is valid. They shouldn't get paid forever for something they did 20 years ago, but they shouldn't have to use an alternate medium (stage performance) to make money from the original endeavor (create music). I don't think the music composer not performing is a justification for piracy.

To take it a step further, if car designer for BMW designs a great car should Ford be allowed to piece for piece copy the car's design and make the car or would you prefer that Ford would have to innovate or develop something on their own without profiting from the work of someone else? If not then who should be rewarded damages for Ford stealing the car design, the designer or BMW? Does your company make money from your designs after you make them?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Amouth]

http://www.magnatune.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Indie-Music-CDs/b?ie=UTF8&node=266023

http://www.itunes.com/indiespotlight

that took all of 30 seconds

Re:Something I find interesting

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Exactly. I think the "age of mass consumption of music" was more referring to only being able to hear whatever the major labels put on the radio stations and on the retail shelves. So I guess it's more the age of mass-produced music that's supposedly ending, although I'm not sure I agree with that either...

Re:Something I find interesting

[grolschie]

Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

Are you saying that paper beats rock? :-)

Re:Something I find interesting

[darthdavid]

Here's some ideas:

Last.fm: it logs everything you listen to (plugins available for every major music player, think it has iphone support too). Get all you the stuff you own and like already digital (if you haven't already) and after a while it'll start churning out really good recommendations based on what you already like.

Festivals: There's a number of good music festivals in the every summer (almost any time of year in warm places). Stuff to suit any taste and in varying degrees of family friendliness and other such attributes. Use a bit of google-fu and you can probably find something local. Take a bit of vacation time and have a couple days of music and fun. Buy cds from the people you like, everyone sells them at these things.

Social Networking: Look at pages on facebook and myspace(about the only thing still there), lots of bands have pages on there and you can find plenty of interesting stuff that way. One good strategy is too look at a friend's (one who you know has good taste) likes and check out any bands you find there.

In a big enough city you should be able to find places catering to a slightly older crowd that should be more active a bit earlier. As a bonus such a place is more likely to be putting on shows you like.

Lastly, you might consider expanding your musical horizons a bit. I like bluesy rock myself (Prefer the Doors to Zeppelin in that vein, but both are really good) but there's so much more out there. Don't be afraid to listen to something just because it's not in your genre and try to give new stuff an honest chance (There are album's I really didn't care much for on the first listen but eventually grew to love. Sometimes it takes a while to 'get' an artist or album or genre, I mean, you probably didn't like coffee the first time you drank it, but if you're like me you wouldn't want to start the day without it now right?).

Re:Something I find interesting

[darthdavid]

Exactly. 90% of the negative consequences of drugs come about because of their illegality and the remaining 10% mostly just effect the person doing the drugs (and thus it should be their choice). As something of a musician myself I'd be thrilled if someone was pirating my work (in fact, I've put it all up online for free). After all, if they're downloading it it means that they like it.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Thank you.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Omestes]

Pandora, Last.fm. I also use the Amazon recommendations, even if I don't end up buying the music from Amazon. Actually most of the music I've "discovered" was from the "similar artists" on Last.fm, and the Amazon recommendations.

Re:Something I find interesting

[inode_buddha]

Oh, *that* Gene Simmons. I thought you meant the aerobics guy.

Re:Something I find interesting

[VanessaE]

Or, to quote Mel Brooks:

"Take a look - we put the picture's name on everything! Merchandising, merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made!"

Aww, just go look at the scene on Youtube.

Re:Something I find interesting

[AmberBlackCat]

I suspect it's not just the hugely successful ones that complain; just that they are the only ones you can hear complaining.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Amouth]

not a problem - personally i love Magnatune - they have some wonderful artists

Re:Something I find interesting

[MyLongNickName]

That would be 1,024 songs then.

Re:Something I find interesting

[dwywit]

I might get modded down for this, but I subscribe to Live365, and my stations play via an old laptop plugged through to a small stereo in the kitchen - I listen for maybe an hour or two a day, while I'm cooking dinner and washing the dishes. Sure there are some "big label" artists, but that's not going to stop me listening to The Pogues anytime soon. There's mainstream genre stations, and lots of nice little specialty stations (e.g. Ozark Mountain Airwaves, Jean's Rambles) that I might choose to listen to once in a while. You don't have to subscribe, but there's no ads when you do, no talkback, and I get a nice warm feeling in my tummy that maybe some of my money is going to less-well-known but equally entertaining artists.

Re:Something I find interesting

[hobo sapiens]

emusic.com

Bands I have discovered on emusic (as in, probably would have neer heard of them were it not for emusic because they get NO airplay and I haven't been at a university for > 10 years) Some of these bands are known, some aren't. But I don't hear any of them on the radio.

Drive By Truckers
Old Crow Medicine Show
Thievery Corporation
Art Tatum
Okkervil River
Mountain Goats
Band of Horses
The Hillbilly Hellcats
The Black Keys
Broken Bells
Earlimart
Colder
Doug Sahm
Flogging Molly
Wayne Hancock
The Hold Steady
M Ward
Thunderball
Tinariwen
Uncle Lucius
Volebeats

Re:Something I find interesting

[hobo sapiens]

"I really like, modern bluesy guitar driven rock."

Drive By Truckers
Uncle Lucius
maybe The Hold Steady
its old news now, but Uncle Tupelo (though it's a bit country too)

I have been recommending emusic.com for discovering stuff.

Re:Something I find interesting

[Ihmhi]

Indeed. Anyone in America can look at their high school class of 10, 20, 30 years ago, and there's at least a few guys who are putting out good music.

It's a dream of mine to have a band, write songs, and play small venues. I don't want to play in an arena. I just want people to hear the music I write and appreciate it.

Re:Something I find interesting

[cayenne8]

"Social Networking: Look at pages on facebook and myspace(about the only thing still there), lots of bands have pages on there and you can find plenty of interesting stuff that way. One good strategy is too look at a friend's (one who you know has good taste) likes and check out any bands you find there."

Alas....I avoid the social networking thing due to privacy concerns, however, thank you for the other excellent suggestions, I'll look at the last.fm thing.

I live in New Orleans as I mentioned...I did find the Drive By Truckers at Jazzfest a couple years ago...just went to Bluesfest..last couple years at that I discovered Tinsley Ellis and Guitar Shorty (fantastic old guy, was Jimi Hendrix's BIL).

I'll keep looking...I guess it is still hard for me to get out of the mindset of listening and finding new good rocking music on the regular FM radio when driving around. It did work that way when I was growing up...

:)

Again..thanks for the suggestions...I'll keep trying to look, and try to stay up at least Fri or Sat nights and try to find some local venues here and stay up late enough to hear some local bands.

Re:Something I find interesting

[uninformedLuddite]

I haven't even seen my computer since I clicked on it!

Re:Something I find interesting

[BlackBloq]

No way there is enough money! 470.00$ for a (that's one) ticket to a show. How can they live charging so little!

http://www.ticketmaster.ca/event/1000446CEAACA12B?artistid=1249444&majorcatid=10001&minorcatid=1

Re:Something I find interesting

[jo42]

First, Gene Simmons was born [as] Chaim Witz in Tirat Carmel, Haifa, Israel in 1949. The rest followed naturally from there.

Re:Something I find interesting

[hesaigo999ca]

Well, if you were an artist, you would know that sales of albums usually only gets you 1$ per album for the band after xx sales (usually 1 million copies for the big ones), which is why Nsync and Backstreet boys took their managers (the same guy to boot) to court because he said they were bankrupt and owed the company money even after selling a gazillion records.

However, the revenue generated by concerts , tshirts, and dolls (Kiss)...usually has a percentage attached on the bottom line dollar for the artist...so in Gene's case, this means he gets more money selling the memorabilia, then he does selling albums....to fill his contract obligations, he just puts out another greatest hit(they have 13 greatest hits albums overall including the alive ones...pretty pathetic and smart at the same time.).

So being a shrewd business man, and getting around the obstacles laid in his path by the big record co. he goes out and promotes himself even more by getting a tv show....now the sensation is back, and doll sales are again going up for him. Smart man!

Re:Something I find interesting

[TheoMurpse]

Actual music is almost dead in America.

You should be modded -1,000,000 idiotic for that. Are you for real?

Someone needs to tell all the new bands forming every day across the US whom I can listen to by virtue of having this thing called the Internet. There are tons of bands/individuals in the US that make frigging raps about Star Wars, let alone instrumental composers, rock groups, etc.!

Re:Something I find interesting

[AP31R0N]

Please, oh great one, tell us what is good!

Re:Something I find interesting

[AP31R0N]

Fun bit of history. Draco merely wrote down the laws of the land so that the courts couldn't just make up stuff. Draco was a champion of justice (for his time) but his name became forever tied to the opposite.

Re:Something I find interesting

[4minus0]

I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it

Actually he does have at least one child. He's a jack-wagon like his pops.

Re:Something I find interesting

[nacturation]

Does the guy that designed or built your car get royalties every time you get in it? Does the guy that designed or made your clothes get royalties every time you wear them?

Does the music company who sold me a CD get paid every time I listen to it? Are you trying to be badanalogyguy?

Re:Something I find interesting

[Glsai]

If you don't mind a bit of a plug for a good radio station (it's from Minnesota Public Radio so no commercials except the occasional fund drive, they stream over the net too) check out The Current ( http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/services/the_current/ ) they play around half of those artists.

How to handle Anonymous

[TheSpoom]

Wait until they get bored of you and move on.

Doing anything else will extend the attacks, because your actions just make it that much lulzier.

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

There will come a point where - if enough attention is consistently drawn to their actions - various government entities will actually take notice and feel compelled to act.

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[hedwards]

Eh, just route all the traffic through both Russia and China and you should be fine.

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[SuricouRaven]

Eventually. The problem with acting against anonymous is that most of them are just pranksters doing the equivilent of a bit of light graffettiing on the internet, and often minors too - and yet there are so many, their collective damage is considerable, and it's impractical to take some action against them all. Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.


The RL equivilent would perhaps be announcing that every day one random person caught littering shall be executed - it's also hugely excessive as a punishment, but it's a whole lot cheaper than hireing enough police to give every litterer a small fine, and you can be sure that the streets would get a lot cleaner.

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[clone53421]

Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.

You give Simmons too much credit... the *IAA came up with that tactic.

Amusingly, if it had worked for the *IAA, Simmons wouldn’t need to be working himself up over this...

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[LanMan04]

The RL equivilent would perhaps be announcing that every day one random person caught littering shall be executed - it's also hugely excessive as a punishment, but it's a whole lot cheaper than hireing enough police to give every litterer a small fine, and you can be sure that the streets would get a lot cleaner.

I suggest you watch this Next Gen episode that is about EXACTLY that concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

>The RL equivilent would perhaps be announcing that every day one random person caught littering shall be executed - it's also hugely excessive as a punishment,
>but it's a whole lot cheaper than hireing enough police to give every litterer a small fine, and you can be sure that the streets would get a lot cleaner.

No, they would not. Britain tried this once - it was called the "Bloody Code." Basically the punishment for almost everything from petty theft on up was hanging. It didn't do much to cut down on crime - in fact, there were pickpockets working the crowds at the foot of the gallows where other pickpockets were being hanged. What *did* cut down on crime was when Britain got a professional police force, created by Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel.

Criminologists have known for well over a century that the certainty of punishment is a *lot* more important than the severity of punishment when it comes to deterrence.

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[omni123]

The RL equivilent would perhaps be announcing that every day one random person caught littering shall be executed - it's also hugely excessive as a punishment, but it's a whole lot cheaper than hireing enough police to give every litterer a small fine, and you can be sure that the streets would get a lot cleaner.

This is basically what happens in singapore.

These include jaywalking, littering and spitting. Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for vandalism offenses.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1017.html

Re:How to handle Anonymous

[iainl]

Of course, by the same logic, Anonymous shouldn't mess around with all this DDOS nonsense when executing a random member of KISS each time Simmons shoots his mouth off would be more effective.

Let's not give 'em ideas though, eh?

Be careful about what you say

[srussia]

FTFA:“Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don’t let anybody cross that line,” Simmons encouraged his peers.

He should have listened to his mother and watched that tongue.

Re:Be careful about what you say

[kellyb9]

Yes, I think every time that someone says something we don't necessarily agree with - we should all resort to vigilante justice. That will surely add legitimacy to the cause that we support.

Re:Be careful about what you say

[betterunixthanunix]

I think that quote really shows how the customers are viewed here...

(Now why won't my mother join the boycott of the RIAA?)

Re:Be careful about what you say

[Ozlanthos]

Knowing the nature of Gene Simmonz, it was probably his parents who taught him that one. It's ok, if Anonymous reads /., I'm sure that got Gene one more attack planned. Got to love it. Watching the likes of Lars Ulrich, and Gene Simmonz get their panties in a bunch over how people choose to share their media online, is like watching an elderly person yell at the tv...and almost as ineffectual.

-Oz

Re:Be careful about what you say

[Artifakt]

The other half of that quote is where he endorsed prison rape for file sharers. I'm not saying we should resort to vigilante justice over the disagreement, but let's be clear just what was said - what many of us don't necessarily agree with is a claim that file sharers deserve to be made some HIV infected murderer's bitch. Gee, I wonder why some people moved from polite disagreement to vigilante justice over a little thing such as that.

Re:Be careful about what you say

[fishbowl]

>He should have listened to his mother and watched that tongue.

His mother wanted him to be a lawyer. He wanted to be a rabbi.

Re:Be careful about what you say

[NIN1385]

If nothing else seeing him think of people like this makes me want to steal his music even more, but it sucks so I wont. Maybe he should just be thankful for what he has instead of being a greedy little bitch. He wont have to worry about money for the rest of his life, and still he is worried about making more money.

Piracy will never be stopped, it is as pointless as a war on drugs. But we have to keep law enforcement and legal professionals supplied with plenty of work so we keep this train of greed, money and politics moving!

The most insightful thing in TFA

[kent_eh]

If nothing else, it certainly will be entertaining to see how long both sides can keep this pissing match going.

Not much more to say, really.

You're missing something here Gene...

[tekiegreg]

The group "anonymous" is everyone and it is no-one...it is what was once your devoted fan-base likely. But now that you've threatened them with jail and a pack of angry lawyers they have become defensive and your worst enemy. They are the embodiment of the hearts you are trying to win towards your music and the mass that is disappointed in your reality.

No I'm not doing this, I honestly didn't hear about these attempts until right now...and have never been a big fan of KISS's music from the get go...

Re:You're missing something here Gene...

[Frosty Piss]

The group "anonymous" is... ...what was once your devoted fan-base likely.

No, not very likely. "Anonymous" probably never bought a single Kiss album. They are the iPod set.

Re:You're missing something here Gene...

[Dhalka226]

They are everyone and no one! They were once your fans but now your worst enemies! They are the embodiment of the hearts you're trying to win and the mass disappointed in your reality!

Isn't this trite junk the sort of thing you say in high school English papers when you want to sound deep without actually having anything important to say? I used to always tell people if they wanted high marks on things, all they needed to do was contradict themselves and acknowledge the contradiction. It's cheap points for sounding smart without saying anything.

By and large these people are not going to be KISS fans; they're not old enough. They're a bunch of immature twats with nothing better to do, who haven't quite managed to escape that phase of puberty where you rebel against all forms of authority. They're not deep. They're not principled. They're just asses on a power trip. It's all they have ever been and all they will ever be. They're an Internet-age gang, except without actually having the balls to let their affiliations be known and take the risks that come with it.

Anonymous is going to be responsible...

[Xilver]

...for the very first Distributed Denial of Blood Supply to the heart. The poor guy's heart is weak already :p

Re:Childish

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Sending pizzas and cardboard boxes is apparently the best Anonymous can do. DDOS isn't even their big gun.

Gene should really love Anonymous

[digitaldc]

With KISS' classic rock jams such as 'Take Me' 'Hooligan' 'Dirty Livin' 'All Hell's Breakin' Loose' 'Any Way You Want It' 'Get All You Can Take' 'Thief In The Night' and 'When Your Walls Come Down', Gene Simmons should really identify with Anonymous, not try and attack them.

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[rotide]

Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[Ozlanthos]

I guess Gene thinks that as long as he is getting free distribution, he ought to shoot for free publicity while he is at it.

-Oz

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[pinkj]

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Massive financial success.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[BobMcD]

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!

This genuinely isn't Gene's fault. It's yours. You're the ones thinking that his youthful endeavors were EVER about anything other than becoming a successful, AND WEALTHY, musical icon.

He doesn't lead the choir at his local church here, folks. He's a rock legend. The distinction is greatly about how far you're willing to go to make a buck.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[rotide]

Isn't that basically what I said? He wants money and fame? And how is it my fault? I don't even like the band, never purchased their music, never went to their shows, never bought any merchandise. Heck, I've never even downloaded one of their tracks.

I thought you were replying to someone else and clicked mine by mistake. But you quoted me.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[BobMcD]

You're expecting these things to be contrary, but they're intrinsic.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[magus_melchior]

Yes, well, check out the guy's interviews and public appearances. He is obnoxious and incredibly self-centered, and as his latest clash with Anonymous demonstrates, insecure and thin-skinned. He doesn't care that Anonymous probably shares his values, because now he thinks they're thieves cutting into his profits.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[An ominous Cow art]

I recall seeing an interview with him (on VH1, I think, possibly a 'Behind the Music' thing) a few years ago where he was very open about the band's motives in the early days. I think he said it was primarily just a business. I also vaguely remember him coming across as kind of a jerk in a Bass Player Magazine interview.

I was never a fan of them back in the Olden Dayes, but I remember other kids in the late 70s talking about the KISS Army fan club and thinking it all seemed a bit silly...

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[BobMcD]

Some musicians play music because they enjoy playing music, not strictly becaus they see it as a beeline to being ludicrously rich.

They do. But those are not 'rock legends'. This level of notoriety requires a certain level of ambition.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[Neptunes_Trident]

All those songs are about selling out your relationships with others.
Compromising dignity and morality to get some and then gloat about it.

Who can blame the youth of today when elders such as Gene boasted about such past times. The only difference is that today, not only do we have horrible messed up relationships with others. Think reality TV etc... Now it has manifested its corruption/exploitation into the material world. IE music It is all piracy of the body and what it creates.

Only difference is now he is the whore getting used, not some bimbo who wets her pants for absurdity.
He is a hypocrite.
He promoted selling out and low standard of relations long ago and now that is just what he has to do.

How does it feel Gene you worthless whiny a$$hat.
What goes around comes around.
No remorse.

p.s. I always hated your crap from day one.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous

[Dabido]

Not sure what your point is? Gene is complaining about people file sharing etc and he isn't getting his royalties. All those songs they (Kiss) perform that are written by others, Kiss has to get permission to use. The song writers get paid their royalties from the sales.

If the Kiss corporate machine wasn't getting permission to perform those songs or weren't paying the royalties due, then I could see you having a point. As Symmons et al are paying to use those songs and not using them for free or illegally, he really is practising what he preaches.

He'll have to learn the hard way...

[Jugalator]

You simply don't win an argument with a group of trolls by feeding them.

Re:He'll have to learn the hard way...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, though, if you let them get away with this sort of behavior, you're just reinforcing it, too, by telling them (in essence) "this is how far you'll have to go to win".

It's rather like dealing with stalkers (who're pretty much on the same rung of the ladder as far as lowlifes are concerned); even if a stalker calls you a hundred times a day, you still don't pick up the phone, as all that accomplishes is teaching them that a hundred calls is what it takes to get through to you.

Not acknowledging trolls at all is probably the best option, but it's not always a feasible option.

In any case, for Simmons, it's likely all a matter of money, anyway. How much money does he lose when his websites are inaccessible? How much money does he have to spend on securing them against this? If it's less than what he gains from tougher legislation which will get passed because he can point to these trolls as a justification for why it's needed, then the whole thing will have worked out in his favor, and the trolls will have been nothing but useful idiots who played their role in his game without even realizing.

Re:He'll have to learn the hard way...

[SuricouRaven]

No, but popcorn may be involved.

Re:He'll have to learn the hard way...

[THESuperShawn]

You simply don't win an argument with a group of trolls by feeding them.

But, in all who fairness, which side is 'not' a troll in this story??? There is no way Gene is not milking this for all the publicity he can get. The guy licenses KISS coffee houses and coffins for crying out loud!!

After all, what is his loss? Would his website really have generated more revenue during the DDoS'ing than what this much publicity would have cost?

I'm just waiting for him to post a Google image-searched picture of a bloodied kid with a caption saying "We got one" like that white supremacist web radio host did a few years back.

Re:Childish

[biryokumaru]

Note to self: Next time I send pizzas to someone as a prank, don't pay for them before hand...

Internet Terrorism

[kellyb9]

Ridiculous. I don't agree with how IP law is implemented, but it doesn't mean I have the right to go and hack someone's site. If you want the laws to change, lobby congress and vote in people who agree with your point of view on this issue. This is basically internet terrorism.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[rotide]

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?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[spidercoz]

ok, glenn beck, rope it in will ya?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Darkness404]

Its not "internet terrorism" its just the same thing as if people were protesting outside a record label, the goal is to cut off access to it. Its not "hacking", Anonymous "hacked" the RIAA using SQL injection to erase the site.

The "real-world" equivalent to a DDoS isn't blowing up a building, but simply having a large amount of people in front of a building. The causes are the same (lots of people trying to get into the building/site) and the results are the same (few people can get in the site/building).

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Dunbal]

You do realize that the internet is an international community, and pointing out certain actors in your local village really fails to convey any meaning to that far greater number of people who really don't know or care who this person you mention is, right? Believe it or not there are more people in the world who don't know this Glenn Beck than people who do.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[spidercoz]

dude, I can't wait for that day, but I'll believe it when I see it

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Yaa 101]

Anonymous is not a homogeneous group of people, they are more like your random person in the street, anonymous can be a small group of 13 year olds having fun with DDossing a douchebag in this case.

If you rise up high in this world, there is always the risk to fall deep, especially when one has a big mouth, a lot of people tend to have problems with big mouths.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

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?

The issue, though, is that 'Anonymous' is a myth. These are real people committing actual crimes, and since they're being so brazen about the conflict, there's an excellent chance that someone WILL take the fall for all of it. It would be one thing to launch an attack at a site unannounced, but to repeatedly use the same methods at the same target, that's just stupid. A scapegoat will be produced if this continues, I promise you that.

So agenda or not, Parent is right. This is not the way to prove Gene wrong. Not today, not in this manner.

All I can think is, 'poor, stupid, kid'.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Dunbal]

This is not true at all, although your attempt to turn this into a "class struggle" has been noted.

The government is actually whoring itself out to only a select few "rich" people. There are quite a few wealthy individuals that want nothing to do with the government, have not lobbied the government, have not contributed to political campaigns, etc. Tarring everyone with the same brush merely cements the foundation of your argument in ignorance.

"They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches."

And what have you done, other than what you were told? Wealthy individuals have organized labor and productivity to create things. Yes, they make money by doing it - but left to your own devices you'd be sitting in someone else's field eating their crops. You need your boss as much as he needs you, you fucking ingrate. If you don't like what you do and feel you have something worthwhile to contribute to society then feel free to get out there and prove yourself. Offering to smash the entire world is not productive at all, especially when you start dreaming that by this an idiot like yourself would suddenly find himself "in charge".

Re:Internet Terrorism

[hedwards]

It's not internet terrorism, besides, it's Kiss, I hear they've got an entire militia. A veritable "Kiss Army" one might say.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[spidercoz]

Believe it or not there are more people in the world who don't know this Glenn Beck than people who do.

yes, and I envy them for it

Re:Internet Terrorism

[SuricouRaven]

Depending on jurisdiction. I recall that in some situations, such a protest is illegal. Mostly europe. Less so in the US, due to that 'freedom of assembley' line in the first amendment - though even there, some states have passed laws requiring protestors stay X feet away from any building enterance or from any legitimate customer. Mostly in response to some pro-life protests outside clinics which worked by obstructing acccess for days on end. Those people are really persistant.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[SuricouRaven]

They are rebels without a cause. They desperatly want to protest *something*, but can't settle on exactly what. Chanology is their record, I believe - the forces of Anonymous managed to stay focused on a single target for two whole weeks.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[rotide]

Yeah, maybe charges will get pressed against one or more of the "anonymous" group. But you're missing my point. They don't care about Gene or his music. There was some sort of "call to arms" in the group and enough of them thought it would be entertaining to DDoS his sites, so it happened. That's it, end of story. Once it is no longer lulz worthy, they will move on.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

Not only do I understand you loud and clear, but I'm already feeling empathy for the poor child whose life will be destroyed by this call to arms.

Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[AlexiaDeath]

Crimes? You really do not have clue, do you? DDoS as done by 4chan isn't hacking. Not even close. It's an internet equivalent of bunch of people showing at your place waving signs that they don't like you much for whatever. Some of them just show up to see what the rest are doing and if it is working. They stay on public property, so you cant have them arrested for that either. Extortion is illegal, organizing a ddos attack from a botnet is illegal. Just showing up and clogging the place? Good luck prosecuting anyone on that.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[rotide]

Again, too much credit is being given. Really, Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of Forum Trolls that sit around and make fun of each other on 4chan. Every now and again, their collective "lulzing" will focus on a single target. Imagine if you will a bunch of 12 year old kids sitting in a room and each has a laser pointer. They will annoy each other all day long and eventually, a new target will present itself. They will switch to that new target and exhaust any entertainment value they can out of it. When that target is no longer entertaining they will find a new one or turn back on themselves. It's just immaturity and herd mentality.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[spleen_blender]

You're either a good slave or one who will be against the wall too when this shit comes.

Plenty of good men and women contribute to society every day without being told to by a master and get slapped down by the powers that be BECAUSE it threatens their dominance.

Letting these sociopaths know their very lives are on the line for every one of their actions is the only way to have any leverage. They obviously have few scruples about exerting their maximal force against the targets of their choosing so you have to push back with equal or greater force.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[AlexiaDeath]

A single host abusing access is easy to block. even thousands of single hosts are. No, its the onlookers and passives that go to see the carnage that eventually kill the server.To make it simpler for you, what 4chan does is a lot like slashdoting, except they don't care about the content much. They just wanna see if its still around. Effectively murdering it.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

Extortion is illegal, organizing a ddos attack from a botnet is illegal. Just showing up and clogging the place? Good luck prosecuting anyone on that.

Note the bolded portion. If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? Even slashdot only brings sites to their knees for a short period of time, and then usually only the low-dollar ones. Professional stuff generally sees little impact from our visits.

So, your premise, "DDoS as done by 4chan isn't hacking" is clearly based on the flawed assumption that no one in that group is utilizing a bot net. Not only do you not have enough information to make that claim, but the observed impact to the sites doesn't match it either.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[CaptSlaq]

THE. GOVERNMENT. IS. COLLUDING. WITH. THE. RICH. AGAINST. THE. POOR. Why do many of you not get this yet? It doesn't matter how much we vocalize, they know what they want to do and they will do it. The only recourse we have is making them know we're not weaklings to be pushed around. We can fight back. Soon this will not happen only online but we will see violent rebellion in "first world" countries if our dear leaders do not get the message. I'd feel no sadness to hear news of the summary execution of executives of corporations nor high political officials. They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches.

Karma burning time...

"The business of America is business". - President Calvin Coolidge

I've never been employed by a "poor" person. Exploited, perhaps, but not gainfully employed.

If you can somehow line out how a society where people can be utterly satisfied by their good work to give it away could successfully operate, I (and I'm certain several others) would be glad to listen. Until then, as ugly as it can be, capitalism is where it's at. No one can work for free all the time, nor does anyone WANT to do so. There is crap about EVERY job that anyone doing it will say "this part sucks". There are parts of some jobs that are "This is potentially life ending". Money is the tool that allows those of us who can't do (or don't want to do) something (like set a broken bone, or make french fries) pay those who can do it well without having to beg of them a portion of their life without reward.

Until people get over this idealized view of humans, we won't be able to get on with actually making our current best option (capitalism, imo) work, or be able to move on to another system that works better.

Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

I understand that fallacy and its role in building the myth. I genuinely do. I also understand the difference between a drive by and an actual bot net. You should as well.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[tophermeyer]

Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it.

Unfortunately it sounds like you're absolutely right. Simmons would be just as happy going after some 16 year old script kiddie who thought it might be fun to play along with a DDoS attack. The guy(s?) who called this are probably competent enough to know a little about hiding their tracks. The kid that Simmons will persecute is probably not so aware.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it.

It’s a rallying cry. What difference does it make who first said it?

Anyone could have started it. If enough people thought that the cause was worth contributing to, it would have gained momentum just the same. “Who started it” is just as irrelevant to the cause as the poor kid who takes the fall for it.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Dunbal]

or one who will be against the wall too when this shit comes.

      No I won't - because I won't be alive.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[gknoy]

It may be "for the lulz", but that doesn't excuse it, nor does it diminish how disruptive and disrespectful it is. I'd never even consider doing something like this, because it violates the basic "don't be a dick" principle.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Ridiculous. I don't agree with how IP law is implemented, but it doesn't mean I have the right to go and hack someone's site. If you want the laws to change, lobby congress and vote in people who agree with your point of view on this issue. This is basically internet terrorism.

I'm not sure if this would be better listed as being "funny" because you are joking, or "sad" because you are serious. I'm sure that "insightful" isn't accurate.

Maybe, maybe, in the past that approach actually worked. If you live in the USA you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that approach actually works now. IP law is what it is because the people who don't like it don't have the money to bribe enough Congressmen to change it.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Belial6]

The irony in that is that the legal system that you endorse was created by people who didn't work within the system. They broke the law and implemented what you now say should be followed because it is the law.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[MaskedSlacker]

Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.

Aldous. Aldous Huxley. And it's a shame you didn't finish the book, since the punchline is that it's not the sort of life anyone would really want.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[neoform]

If you want the laws to change, lobby congress and vote in people who agree with your point of view on this issue.

Right, so now all we have to do is beat the RIAA's lobbying efforts.

Got a couple of bucks to chip in?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[CaptSlaq]

Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.

Aldous. Aldous Huxley. And it's a shame you didn't finish the book, since the punchline is that it's not the sort of life anyone would really want.

Primary reason was chapters 1 and 2: I had just had my son less than a year ago when I started reading it (inspired by the image in this post: http://www.cluelessgamer.com/2009/07/15/huxley-vs-orwell/), and the descriptions of what they called "training", along with my overactive imagination...

Thank you for the gentle correction.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Khyber]

"Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it."

You assume only one person was involved in this call.

You are mistaken and you should probably dip your head into the hellhole of the internet more often.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Khyber]

"If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? "

You would be the clueless one, as I taught a great majority of 4chan that the easier way to DDoS is to visit the site with firefox, and set the reloadevery plugin to refresh every second. It also happens to be legal (refreshing constantly for new information is a typical behavior on 4chan, turning that into an indirect attack method was trivial.) It also consumes far greater bandwidth.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

"If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? "

You would be the clueless one, as I taught a great majority of 4chan that the easier way to DDoS is to visit the site with firefox, and set the reloadevery plugin to refresh every second. It also happens to be legal (refreshing constantly for new information is a typical behavior on 4chan, turning that into an indirect attack method was trivial.) It also consumes far greater bandwidth.

And while you were doing that, someone else kicked off a bot net, to reinforce that 4chan is somehow relevant. Maybe it wasn't you, but there's almost zero chance that it didn't happen.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[AlexiaDeath]

Why would it happen? Botnets are kept for profit. They are much better utilized for activities that the botmaster gets paid for. I really don't see an actual botmaster wasting his resources for childish causes like this, sorry.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[AlexiaDeath]

oh rly1? 4chan in its own way is a botnet yes, but its a botnet of humans with 4chan's /b/ as its command server. And if you think its not big enough to dwarf any botnet, think again. The reason you wont see a usual for profit botnet engaged in this is that there is no profit to be made.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[AlexiaDeath]

Sometimes some people ar such dicks that stooping to their level is mandatory :)

Re:Internet Terrorism

[Tom]

Depends on your definition.

They certainly believe in standing up for what they think is right. You could call that both political and activist. Now you can proceed to call their belief, their methods or their behaviour childish, inappropriate or whatever - but then again, I'm sure that all of those are terms that politicans have at times used to belittle their opponents.

There is a bit more than lulz to it. They're not targetting random sites, for example.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

there's almost zero chance that it didn't happen

And there’s almost zero chance that you actually know what you’re talking about, or aren’t making this up as you go merrily along on baseless assumptions.

Show me some evidence that it did happen.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

That's an interesting challenge, but we both know that we're BOTH speculating. Does it then become a contest of whomever can utilize the strongest phrasing?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

I’m not speculating. I know for a fact that what Khyber described is one of the tactics used by Anonymous. In fact I’ve seen pastebin pages that embed all the images from a website and automatically reload them constantly, all done via javascript.

Now, whether or not he was the one who came up with that tactic is questionable, but it doesn’t matter anyway.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

And you know, for a fact, that nothing outside of Khyber's efforts were involved?

How?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

I know for a fact that what you described would be illegal, whereas what Khyber described is not. Since you are claiming that something illegal took place, the burden of proof lies on you.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

Hardly. I'm not making any accusations of that sort, as I am unaffiliated with any party who would have standing in court. I'm not civilly nor criminally linked via courts to this matter.

Therefore, your standard is far too strict.

Again, we're both speculating as to what actually occurred, and that is the entire point. In my experience the result described is only produced by utilizing certain tools. In your experience it is produced through magical unicorn farts or what have you. That's fine, but clearly we disagree. Did you have anything more substantial on the matter to say, or are we done?

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

You have claimed, and must prove, that non-illegal means were insufficient to cause the effects of this DDoS. What proof do you have? None, and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about either. Unless you can prove that something illegal took place, you’re just talking out your ass, and I’ll continue to presume innocence unless you can prove guilt.

Khyber has claimed that non-illegal means were adequate to create this DDoS. His proof is that the non-illegal methods were, provably, occurring, and that he knows much more about it than you do. Besides which, the application of Occam’s Razor indicates that if this explanation is adequate, your obsessive desire to add the illegal use of a botnet to the equation requires you to first prove that it was necessary.

Your subsequent rebuttal – “yeah but prove that my big illegal conspiracy didn’t happen” – just makes you sound (a) stupid, (b) a conspiracy theorist, (c) nutter, (d) all of the above.

Re:Internet Terrorism

[BobMcD]

Right, we covered this impasse six or seven posts ago. Neither of us has proof of anything, and we're both merely speculating as to what occurred. I suppose, then, that you're simply seeking the last word, which I will gladly let you have.

Have a great day!

Re:Internet Terrorism

[clone53421]

Tell you what... when you can prove that you’re not a witch, I will attempt to prove that Anonymous did not use an illegal botnet to attack Gene Simmons’ websites.

Until then, crazy nutters and conspiracy theorists such as yourself can assume that, despite having no proof whatsoever, we’re all witches and Anonymous used secret illegal botnets to attack Simmons’ websites...

...and sane and reasonable people can assume that, since there is no proof otherwise, no illegal botnet was involved regardless of any nutter conspiracy theorist who claims otherwise. We will also assume that you are probably not a witch since there’s no proof of that either – the fact that you are a moron, however, has been clearly and definitively proven.

Feel free to let me have the last word... you’re only making yourself look more stupid by refusing to quit arguing when you’re wrong. This “impasse” (as you call it) consists entirely of you insisting that something illegal took place despite having no proof, demanding that we prove that it didn’t, and refusing to admit that this is completely illogical. Of course we will have an impasse as long as you maintain that illogical position.

Richard Simmons

[Culture20]

I don't know why, but I imagined Richard Simmons was getting DDoS'd and I was very confused.

Re:Richard Simmons

[circletimessquare]

he is getting DDoS'd. but what DDoS stands for in the context of richard simmons is not printable in a family website like slashdot, ehem

Re:Richard Simmons

[ceoyoyo]

Every time I hear Gene Simmons I think Richard Simmons for some reason. It made the idea of that reality show he did much more surreal. The image of Richard Simmons making threats against music pirates and reacting to a DDOS is pretty funny though.

Wrong.

[Petersko]

"The group "anonymous" is everyone and it is no-one...it is what was once your devoted fan-base likely."

His fanbase is comprised primarily of people in the generations that still buy records. "Anonymous" probably never bought a single Kiss album. I can be pretty sure if they bought "Dressed to Kill" they aren't DDOS'sing anybody.

Re:Wrong.

[the_hellspawn]

Anonymous is a mishmash collection of personalities ranging from teens to crusty old people. Each person contributes in their own way. I use to purchase music on physical media, but as time wears on the music just keeps getting crappier as most of us know already. Many in the Army of Anonymous purchases music if he/she can and for the youth of Anonymous they grab their media in the way they know. Anonymous is everyone and yet no-one.

Re:Wrong.

[Raenex]

Anonymous is a mishmash collection of personalities ranging from teens to crusty old people.

You're willfully ignoring demographics. Most of these people are going to be under 30. Just look at the images for who turned up at the Scientology protests.

Re:Wrong.

[tibman]

I'm of the opinion that most neckbeards predate napster. I don't know the average age of people acting for Anonymous but some of them must be atleast 30. Which means they were buying CDs in highschool (pre-napster and pre-mp3 player). But back then it was buying CDs, Rip them, share them at lan-parties. But we were atleast buying the things.

Re:Wrong.

[Khyber]

You're willfully ignoring individuality. I am under 30, and I own records dating back to the 1930s.

Re:Wrong.

[Raenex]

You're willfully ignoring individuality.

Yes, I am, because Anonymous as a whole was being discussed. The vast majority aren't what was called Gene Simmon's "what was once your devoted fan-base".

The KISS of death

[GPLDAN]

You show us everything you've got
You keep on dossin' and the net gets hot
You drive us batty, we'll sue your ass
You say you wanna go for a spin
The party's just begun, we'll let you in
You kill our blog, we'll drive a spike to your chin
You keep on shoutin', you keep on shoutin


I wanna kick Simmons ass all nite and blog every day!
I wanna kick Simmons ass all nite and blog every day!

Kiss goooood...pirates baaaad

[grapeape]

Sadly Gene is about 5 years behind Metallica in learning that biting the hand that feeds you hurts you more in the end. I've got a friend that would buy every piece of Kiss crap that hit the shelves from CD's to action figures. He got sick of Gene's crap last year over this kind of thing and has been slowly selling his entire collection on ebay. It doesn't help that the album prices for digital downloads are nearly 50% higher than buying the CD. Take Kiss Alive II for example, at Wal-Mart and Best Buy its $9.99 while on Amazon and Itunes its $13.99, who in their right mind would buy the digital version when they can buy the disk and just rip it? I dont use a cd player anymore, but still buy CD's for this specific purpose....but according to Gene im a pirate for it. I realize your an old man Gene but you pretend to be hip and relevant try and at least understand the technology and why people do what they do, maybe then you could be part of the solution rather than a contributor to the problem. I dont think Gene realizes that the same people he is wanting to sue are the same people willing to buy Kiss caskets and trinkets, with his known level of greed you would think he would be more concerned with the revenue stream than someone downloading a copy of a song they have likely already purchased on Vinyl, Cassette and CD.

Re:Kiss goooood...pirates baaaad

[Threni]

> but according to Gene im a pirate for it.

According to UK law you are, too!

Follow Gandalf's strategy instead

[dkleinsc]

The way to defeat trolls is to keep them arguing with each other all night long, until daylight arrives and they're no longer a threat. (ok, in this case it's because their mothers have sent them off to school, but the idea is similar)

Re:Free Speech.

[bored_engineer]

No, Microsoft did it.

Has Anonymous really prevented him from speaking? It seems to me that right now, Anonymous is in the part of the conversation where the more childish of the two tries to shout down the other party. Gene Simmons will still be able to speak (even though he might sound like an asshat).

Inaccessable?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Was anyone even trying to access them in the first place?

Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[iONiUM]

What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?

I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[spidercoz]

why aren't Motley Crue dead? the ones that SHOULD die never do

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[BobMcD]

What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?

I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.

Did you ever consider that the ENTIRE thing was a front? Not just the costumes, but the drug lifestyle and the whole thing? Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[gstoddart]

What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?

Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Doesn't do drugs. Says he never did, nobody has ever contradicted him on that.

Also claims to have humped everything that ever came along, which you can take with a grain of salt. I'm sure his own count is inflated, but I'm sure he's never wanted for willing females.

Gene Simmons is a nice Jewish boy who has always been about making money and selling his brand. He's not your typical aging rocker -- having watched a couple episodes of his TV show, he's an out of date old fool of a narcissist who is obsessed with his own image and making money in the worst possible way.

In short, he's absolutely part of the problem with the RIAA mindset. As has been pointed out in this thread, advocating prison rape for file sharers (or Anonymous, or whomever he was referring to) goes to demonstrate he's a bit of a loon, and has way crossed the line.

I thought he was irrelevant before his TV series. Now he's irrelevant, pathetic, and a lot more lame than I ever thought he was. At least his son seems to treat him like the old troll that he is.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[gstoddart]

Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.

Not without some precedent though.

Eric Clapton, George Harrison, The Stones, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Guns and Roses, Kurt Cobain, CCR ... probably countless I can't even think of off the top of my head ... the whole notion of rock legends being users of some pretty hardcore drugs is exceedingly well documented, and not what you'd call a front. The ones that survive it and keep going are some of the biggest legends there are.

Many of them turned around and stopped using. But, in a huge amount of cases, I don't believe that the whole drug thing was a "front". It's more like documented fact.

Now, in the case of Simmons at least, he absolutely wasn't using them, and I don't think ever claimed he did.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[ceoyoyo]

Drugs are a strong selective pressure for musicians. The ones who don't die of overdoses seem to be practically immortal. KISS, Aerosmith, etc.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs?

[vaporland]

Don't forget, Simmons can't sing or write decent music either. I remember when they first hit the scene, never liked Kiss, thought they were sucky-poseurs.

And the famous tongue? Well, if he's fu*ked and gone down on as many girls as he says, that thing must be a garden of HPV, HSV, NGU and other 'earthly' delights...

Re:Childish

[houghi]

Yeah, because then you would scam the people bringing the pizza, not the people it is delivered to.

Re:Free Speech.

[clone53421]

In fact it’s more that they do believe in free speech.

Free speech has a dark side... if everyone speaks at once, who do you listen to? Who do you answer?

They’re dousing his sites’ server with a shitstorm of so much free speech that it can’t figure out who to listen to and who to ignore...

Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Drakkenmensch]

Anonymous regularly takes on the church of scientology, one of the most aggressively litigious entities in the world (WORSE than the RIAA/MPAA) and stays ahead of them. You really think that your facepaint and unnaturally long tongue are going to scare them any?

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[brainboyz]

This is actually a very good point.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[magus_melchior]

It's the guy who told one of the best interviewers in the country that she should welcome him with "open legs". I don't think intelligence and good sense are part of his skill set.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Ihateturtlenecks]

Except that they didn't put a dent in Scientology. You think a one day DDoS really slows them down? Some yahoos in Guy Fawkes masks? The Church of Scientology still enjoys tax exempt status and truck loads of money. All the big talk about having a campaign planned out for years turned out to be vapor.

In fact, CoS and some associated groups nearly turned the table on Anon itself.

The majority of Anonymous' "success" involves berating teenage girls for self indulgent YouTube vidoes.

There is just too much of a difference between internet famous and really famous.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[revlayle]

They weren't trying to dent them... they were just doing it as long as it was "entertaining" - once the lulz died down, so did Project Chanology. They got Scientology irritated more than anything, and that is a "win" to Anon. Anon doesn't care... whatever entertains them that day is what they do. The amazing about Project Chanology was how long it lasted. I imagine a few people were trying to really achieve something. Those people I call "suckers" that the rest of Anon used to get their lulz on... let a few do the work and then everyone else just shows up and laugh asses off.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Ihateturtlenecks]

Drakkenmensch was claiming that they "regularly take on" and "stay ahead" of Scientology. My point was, Anon actually has hardly any real effect on the outside world at all. They have their little circle jerks, put up some e-graffiti andfd take a nap.

They might be able to hurt individuals who aren't savvy about them, but they can't hurt actually prepared organizations with real resources

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[clone53421]

Drakkenmensch was claiming that they "regularly take on" and "stay ahead" of Scientology.

“takes on” = pisses off
“stays ahead of” = never faces any consequences

HTH, HAND

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Ihateturtlenecks]

No, not at all. "takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups.

"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"

Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video. Which of course, no one on Anonymous ahd a problem with

Anon basically did the cyber version ding-dong-ditch. Annoying, inconsequential children.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[clone53421]

"takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups

"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"

The world of grown ups must be completely unfamiliar with the concept of waging a guerrilla war, then. Or maybe that’s just you.

Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video.

Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics... and if it was working, there’d be no need for Gene to get himself all worked up; people would be too afraid of getting bankrupted by the RIAA if they downloaded anything.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Ihateturtlenecks]

Ding-dong-ditch is not guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.

"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.

Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics...

As well as Anonymous themselves. They've lashed out blindly to hurt people they thought were offenders to whatever cause they were touting that day. Just look at their counter attack on Regency. They ended up publishing the personal info of some retired couple.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[clone53421]

Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.

Gene Simmons paid for bandwidth, storage, and hosting. His bandwidth was wasted and the storage and hosting were made temporarily worthless for its intended purpose.

That is real damage and I’m sure he would take you to task on your claim that it didn’t cause him any “lasting” damage. He will have to eat that expense unless his internet server reimburses him at their own loss.

"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.

Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition if it brings about real effects.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[Ihateturtlenecks]

I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons. Of course it is easy for a bunch of script kiddies to crash someone's personal website. Simmons is probably using the cheapest service he could find to set it up.

Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition

No. Not at all

if it brings about real effects.

Which Anonymous doesn't do. Not on any large scale. They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.

Re:Gene, you may want to stay quiet

[clone53421]

I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons.

Oh! Excellent, you appear to know something that we didn’t! Please let the CoS know right away that Prolexic Technologies’ DDoS protection services come free of charge...*

“Shortly after it was hit with the DDOS flood, the Scientology.org Web site was moved to a server hosted by Prolexic Technologies, according to dat compiled by Netcraft, an Internet monitoring company. Prolexic specializes in protecting companies from DDOS attacks.”

I highly suspect they actually tried to charge money for those FREE services. But you obviously know better and I’m sure that everything will be set straight now that you’ve clarified that the CoS was not “really” damaged and obviously shouldn’t incur any additional costs because of these non-lasting, intangible attacks.

They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.

I’m sorry, you don’t get to define “real” change. You’re just defining that to be slightly beyond whatever they’re currently capable of... that way you’ll never have to admit that the effect they’re having is “real”.

*My sarcasm meter just broke. You owe me $5.

Re:Childish

[gman003]

Shouting louder isn't a legitimate way to win an argument.

Cheers,
Ian

YES IT IS!

Re:Free Speech.

[XxtraLarGe]

So, in effect, Anonymous is proving that they don't believe in free speech. Brilliant.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. I don't approve of file "sharing" or Anonymous's DDOS methods here, but I think it is important to make the distinction. A better way would be to boycott Kiss, call your local radio stations and say "I won't listen to your station any more until you stop playing Kiss", stop drinking Dr. Pepper, etc. if you disagree with what he's saying.

Love Gun

[Is0m0rph]

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!

Re:Love Gun

[Is0m0rph]

That is one funny movie!

Re:Childish

[swarsron]

IT IS.

see? i won

Re:Free Speech.

[Miseph]

Don't be ridiculous, of course they believe in Free Speech. They just place some conditions on that speech.

Free Speech requires the following for Anonymous to support it:

*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something
*It must be obnoxious and ultimately without purpose
*It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated, poor, unknown or uneducated... all of those groups are stupid (see first bullet)
*It must not criticize Anonymous in any way, ever, for any reason, doing so makes you a fascist who hates Free Speech
*It must not violate any of Anonymous' other stipulations which may or may not exist and may or may not be made known before they begin enforcing them

That's pretty ringing support, in my book. Actually, it looks pretty similar to the conditions most major Western political parties put on their support for Free Speech. Perhaps it really is time for the Dramacratic Party to step forward and seize the mantle of power... they've got the requisite hypocrisy in place, and they certainly have enough skilled operators to start rigging elections like the big boys. How about it gaiz?

Seriously

[bbbaldie]

He's not worried about anybody pirating any crap he's recorded, is he? That'd be like stealing a Yugo.

Ah yes, to be young and rebelous...

[holiggan]

Isn't that the motto of the rock/metal bands? "Be rebel, fight the system", etc, etc?

So, all the "be rebel, fight the system, we are so hip and mean and evil and answer to no one, stick your tongue out, do the little horned sign with your fingers" stuff that you guys have been putting for decades is just a giant piece of fluff, hum? Is just a part of the "marketing", I presume, to get young (and not so young) people to buy your crap or watch your shows, right? That's nice. It shows a couple of things about the appreciation that some big names in music have for their fans. I understand, you don't need no fraking fans anymore, right? You're so filthy rich now that you won't need to do anything else for the rest of your life, even if you live to be 150 y.o.

It's always nice to see how big big big money and power corrupts anyone. And please, keep your dated and moldy music to yourselves. Fortunately I don't need no "big name in industry" to enjoy music, no matter what the genre.

I can't help myself but smile and nod my head in disapproval when I see someone like Gene or the guys from Metallica bashing filesharing and piracy... It's a bit like watching a Britney video, and then eventually watch her advocate "abstinence". It's called "hypocrisy".

That's why more and more I see music as an "act". It's like theater. It's make-believe. Sure, a song can be written in a moment of genuine anger, or love, or joy. But please, don't mistake the song for the emotion. Don't believe that every single time that a metal band plays a rock hard anthem that tells you to get angry at the "big man", they are actually that angry *all the time*, or that they are angry at all. In fact, changes are that they have become the "big man" themselves...

That's why I keep a prudent, skeptic distance when I sense that music is trying to "preach" something: be it something rebellious, shy/pure/happy, slutty, gangsta, or whatever.

Re:Ah yes, to be young and rebelous...

[geminidomino]

Isn't that the motto of the rock/metal bands? "Be rebel, fight the system", etc, etc?

And there's the lesson of the day. "Rock/Metal" as a whole is no less a sell-out sham than law, medicine, etc... If you like the music, then enjoy it, but the whole "music as a movement" thing died a long time ago.

Re:Ah yes, to be young and rebelous...

[jweller]

At least some bands have the decency to be honest about it....

I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a
Dope Beastie t, nipple rings, and
New tattoos that claimed that he
Was OGT,
From '92,
The first EP.

And in between
Sips of Coke
He told me that
He thought
We were sellin' out,
Layin' down,
Suckin' up
To the man.

Well now I've got some
A-dvice for you, little buddy.
Before you point the finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

And if I'm the man,

Then you're the man, and
He's the man as well so you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb fuck.
I sold out long before you ever heard my name.

I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit,
And you bought one.

So I've got some
Advice for you, little buddy.
Before you point your finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

If I'm the fuckin' man
Then you're the fuckin' man as well
So you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb fuck.
I sold out long before you ever heard my name.

I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit,
And you bought one.

All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on TV
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty
Dollar

So...Shut up and

Buy my new record
Send more money
Fuck you, buddy.

Shatner's Raw Nerve

[frog_strat]

I saw the interview of Simmons on Shatner's Raw Nerve. Gene has no interest in art, he was just a clever young man trying to figure out how to survive. He had a messed up childhood, and I still see him carrying a lot of pain around.

Re:Richard Simmons DDoS

[digitaldc]

Gives new meaning to 'Sweatin' to the Oldies'

Re:Free Speech.

[MyLongNickName]

What twisted logic. They don't like what he says so they take down his website.Yup, this screams "I love free speech"

And yes, there are other ways to communicate. Anonymous or any other entity does not have the right to limit that free speech.

And apparently there are a ton of anon supporters out there who just don't get this.

Re:Free Speech.

[clone53421]

*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something
*It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated

There was a very good reason that Ben Franklin used a pen name to remain anonymous in some of the things he authored.

Anonymity prevents people from attacking the messenger.
It also prevents people from attributing undeserved credibility to a message just because the messenger is rich, famous, or educated.

Re:Free Speech.

[MyLongNickName]

Blocking a route to free speech is the same as being against it. Yes, certainly Gene has other routes to get his point across. But the approval of the Slashdot crowd for this type of behavior is sickening. Basically if you don't approve of what someone says, then it is okay to do whatever you want.

Wah wah wah....

[fredjh]

I'm so sick of the "music sucks nowadays" whines, it's sickening... every generations says the same damn thing.

This guy DDOSing Simmons is a complete asshole. There's no justification for it.

Re:Free Speech.

[MyLongNickName]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I agree with almost everything you said. However, one should be protected against destructive "consequences" to ones actions. Boycotting, as you suggest, is acceptable. Shutting down a website is not.

Re:Free Speech.

[MyLongNickName]

Brilliant. I love the rationalization process. I guarantee you that if Microsoft used its corporate servers and Windows base to DDOS open source supporting software, that Slashdot would cry "foul". Yet in this instance, a sizeable percentage of Slashdot loves the DDOS of Simmons.

Something for every business to keep in mind

[cdrguru]

There is no law on the Internet, except the "Law of the Internet".

The Law of the Internet is simple: you can get away with anything as long as you don't brag about it. Oh, and if you piss someone off you may face unimaginable consequences.

So, there are two lessons from this:

1. 
   Don't brag about your exploits as you will be punished if you do.
2. Don't piss people off that are motivated to punish you.

The thing to realize about point 2 is that you are always going to piss people off. It is unavoidable if you have any interaction on the Internet. Posting a picture of your dog on Facebook will piss people off that hate dogs. Posting a picture of a cat on Facebook will piss people off that hate cats. There is no escape from this. All you can hope is that the pissed-off person has better things to do than make your life hell.

Re:Something for every business to keep in mind

[Stevecrox]

You forgot Rule 34 of the internet, if you can imagine it there is porn of it

Re:Free Speech.

[MyLongNickName]

But Ben Franklin also said things under his real name. So the key word "must" is violated...

Re:Childish

[Dracos]

Right or wrong, the loudest voices tend to get their way. It may not be a legitimate method, but it works.

Re:Free Speech.

[Pojut]

What twisted logic. They don't like what he says so they take down his website.Yup, this screams "I love free speech"

Take a binger, sit down, and chill out. Simmons is still able to say his opinion, be heard, and pretty much do what he wants. A website being knocked out doesn't prevent the public from hearing what he has to say, nor does it prevent him from saying what he wants to say.

I'm not saying I agree with what Anon did, but fuckin' hell dude...it has nothing to do with "restricting free speech"...it has to do with pissing Simmons off.

And yes, there are other ways to communicate. Anonymous or any other entity does not have the right to limit that free speech.

And they haven't! Simmons can still say whatever he wants!

Re:Free Speech.

[clone53421]

I’ll settle for “sometimes must”. Other times it perhaps doesn’t.

I see a creepy pattern

[Dan667]

Lars Ulrich, creepy dude. Gene Simmons, creepy dude. I can only conclude that creepy people want to shill for the big record companies and the RIAA and try to convince them that it is something else and not their creepiness that is the reason no one wants to buy their music.

they should slam this one too

[luckymutt]

Simmons is also the co-founder of this place.

Re:Childish

[amicusNYCL]

Shouting louder isn't a legitimate way to win an argument.

The current state of US politics disagrees with you.

Re:Free Speech.

[bored_engineer]

Sorry that I wasn't clear: I don't approve of what Anonymous is doing. It's clearly illegal, and it's about as mature, as a method of getting your point across, as a child's tantrum. It does nothing to further your agenda, and only pisses off the other party.

F*** him then

[captain_dope_pants]

I just pirated Kiss's entire discography. Not going to listen to it though as I think it's rubbish !

Re:Free Speech.

[amicusNYCL]

A better way would be to boycott Kiss, call your local radio stations and say "I won't listen to your station any more until you stop playing Kiss"

Yeah, that will go over well. "Sorry kid, I lost my virginity to Rock And Roll All Night. Have a nice day."

stop drinking Dr. Pepper

Now you go too far!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Kiss Marketing

[Deathlizard]

Actually it's pretty interesting that it's Gene Simmons of KISS bashing Music Pirates, Especially since KISS merchandise is such a substantial portion of their sales, if not more than album sales itself at this point.

Last time I checked, it's still pretty hard to use the internet to pirate a KISS action figure.

Re:Kiss Marketing

[winwar]

"Actually it's pretty interesting that it's Gene Simmons of KISS bashing Music Pirates..."

"Last time I checked, it's still pretty hard to use the internet to pirate a KISS action figure."

KISS has always been about the marketing. And what better way to get promotion than to dare people to download your music? And DDoS your site? No publicity is bad publicity...

Two words...

[Da_Biz]

sup /b/?

Sweet!

[guspasho]

So Gene Simmons isn't going to back down, and neither will Anonymous. They're just going to keep going back and forth tit for tat. A feud between Gene Simmons and Anonymous is going to be awesome!

Make it Personal

[Anonymous Coward]

The personal, as everyone's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here - it is slow and cold, and it is theirs. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way you stand a far better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous, marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes- between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life, and that it's nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.

Quellcrist Falconer, Things I Should Have Learned by Now. Volume II

From Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan

Hitting a bee hive with a stick

[zeroshade]

The point to realize is this:

Is DDoS the right answer? No. Is it funny and amusing? Yes. Does Gene Simmons deserve it? Well that depends, does a person who hits a beehive with a stick deserve to get stung?

Beer Good!!

[damien_kane]

Napster Bad!!

Seriously though, this is the exact same thing as the Metallica issue back around the turn of the millennium.

"You fucking made us rich. You fucking made us popular. I worship you. Unless you downloaded 'Until It Sleeps' from Napster ... then you're going to motherfucking jail. You're motherfucking meat."
...Camp Chaos

Gene's site is hacked

[sourcerror]

Now www.genesimmons.com redirects to Piratebay!

Re:Free Speech.

[Gerafix]

Implying that pissing people off isn't the "agenda" of Anonymous in the first place.

Don't DDos

[slapout]

I wouldn't have DDos'd them. I would have redirected all their traffic to Dr. Pepper's website so that their fans think they'd totally sold out.

FUD

[Chaonici]

> Blocking a route to free speech is the same as being against it.

You must get awful pissed off anytime you are:
* Kicked from an IRC channel
* Banned from a certain website (or your registration is simply refused)
* Blocked on a social networking site
* Blocked on an instant messaging service
* At work and expected to maintain a level of civility

How dare they violate your right to free speech!

No. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government cannot silence people from making their opinions known, regardless of what they have to say. Gene Simmons is not being censored by the government, therefore, Anonymous is not violating his right to freedom of speech. Your post is FUD.

Uh, no.

[krizoitz]

Anonymous are common thugs who hide behind internet anonymity to get away with their vandalism. I think Simmons approach is stupid, I think the RIAA approach is stupid, but Anonymous isn't some Robin Hood coming to our rescue, they are people who enjoy harrassing other people, plain and simple.

Find local, talented artists with Uvumi

[psyclone]

Uvumi is a small, but growing community of artists of varying genres:

http://www.uvumi.com/

Check out the Playlists contributed by users, as well as the Charts (based on user playback).

Re:Free Speech.

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Out of curiosity which side of the argument were you on a few weeks ago when the host of the church website where they planned the Quran burning stopped providing the church service? The side that felt the host did nothing wrong or the side that thought the host was limiting free speech?

Just saying that there is an argument here about Anonymous limiting free speech and to me it sounds like the same argument that went on a few weeks ago except that the host actually had an agreement with the church beforehand (the church broke) and nobody has an agreement with Anonymous.

Re:Free Speech.

[Pojut]

Honestly, I sided with the host doing nothing wrong. The way I saw it was like this:

Say I own a store. You walk in, start browsing around, turn the corner, and find yourself face to face with a black guy. You, being a racist neo-nazi (heh), start spouting off racial nastiness. As the store owner, it's my right to kick you out of the store if I want to. You're still free to say whatever you want to the guy, just not in my store.

  You're allowed to say pretty much what you want, but like anything else, there's always consequences and the reactions of other people, both of which are beyond your control. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it is.

Free speech isn't just a right...it's a responsibility.

Re:Free Speech.

[clone53421]

I repeat... how is it analogous?

This is thousands, millions even, of people using their own individual online presence to collectively drown a website – essentially in a storm of protest. It’s no different from any real-life protest or strike. They aren’t hacking or cracking their way into anything they don’t have access to. They’re just requesting a page over and over, and the server is trying to accommodate those requests and melting under the load.

What he described would be a single entity or small group of people using millions of computers, probably without the knowledge of the people who even owned them, to make themselves seem louder than they actually would be. Not only would it be illegal to hijack my computer this way, it would be unfairly representative of the voice of the people behind the protest.

So how is it analogous? In this case you have millions of people raising a ruckus. Of course that causes severe problems just as millions of people on the mall in Washington DC would cause quite a snarl in the usual traffic there. It’s not even remotely similar to what he claimed.

Gene Simmons is a businessman

[rickb928]

Ask him, he'll tell you. Catch a few episodes of his show, and you'll know that.

As a businessman, clearly he doesn't want people usign his product for free when he wants to sell it instead.

So of course he speaks out against piracy, real, imagined, significant, or insignificant.

And of course he will sue the pants off anyone that diminishes or devalues his business.

Unless it is bad for business. Then he won't.

Simple. Nothing much to see here.

Oh, and I bet he has enough money to cause a little bit of trouble for some of the providers involved with Anonymous, and maybe ensnare some of the not so smart ones involved. It takes more than money to catch the clever.

These are not the trolls you are looking for.

[Synonymous Homonym]

These trolls are the ones who get people arguing with each other over things of no consequence, then laugh at them. You don't defeat them - if you begin to fight them, you have already lost. They do it for the lulz: Everyone has the right to make a fool of themselves, and trolls encourage people to claim their fifteen minutes.

Training for the Olympics

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

So far there is no record of Simmons actually filing any legal suit, and if he did it likely wouldn’t be easy to figure out the identities of anyone responsible for the origination of the attacks. If nothing else, it certainly will be entertaining to see how long both sides can keep this pissing match going. Anyone for up for a game of PING PONG?

For both sides

[DarkMinds69]

To sum it all up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks7huCp1Zv0

Re:Free Speech.

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I agree with you.

The distinction I see in this case is that the case before was like someone borrows my pencil to write something I don't like and I take my pencil back, where this one is more like I am writing something someone else doesn't like with my pencil and they steal my pencil in order to prevent my ability to communicate with that medium.

Or to use your example it would be like the neo-nazi preventing people from going into the store because the owner didn't support neo-nazism

I take issue with this one as I don't feel Anonymous had the right for the prevention of the communication medium whereas the other case the provider did.

Re:Childish

[MichaelKristopeit 19]

it's impossible to murder a coward that won't present themselves.

if you come onto my property and take responsibility for brining harm to myself or my family, i WILL kill you. it's pretty simple, coward.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.