Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

[nick n stuff]

makes you proud to be a KISS fan

 

[tehweave]

Good luck to him. I am getting sick of this "Don't mess with Anonymous" fear that so many people seem to feel.

You really shouldn't mess with anon... Im not part of them (obviously because there's a name to the left) but they are chaos incarnate. You can't mess with chaos. Chaos simply is. They will chose a victim, attack, leave, and no evidence is left behind.

Simmons would have to shut down 4chan to do this, but I highly doubt he has that power... If he does, whooooo boy... Anon will figuratively murder him.

 

[ZephrC]

Wow. I'm definitely in the camp that wants to find a way for them to both lose.

Really though, I mostly think it hilarious that the recording industry and their tools still think it's even remotely possible to ever control information in our society. It didn't work before the internet, and the internet just made it harder. And this is coming from someone that actually pays for all their music.

It's not a question of right and wrong, it's a question of bad or worse. A world in which large organizations could reliably control the flow of information is whole orders of magnitude worse than one in which music is stolen over the internet. Yeah, anonymous is a bunch of jackass thieves with entitlement issues, but they're still better than the alternative.

 

[Bruin]

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

From the outside a lot of art-based industries seem like "fun" and that they should be art-driven. But we live in a money-based society. People need money to live.

Do you think that most small-time musicians, who work during the day in say an office and spend their nights jamming or doing gigs in small pubs, don't you think that if they love music they'd prefer to be making money doing it? Of course most of them probably would.

If current musicians enjoy what they're doing, shouldn't they be entitled to make money as well? If someone's enjoyment comes not from the music, but the performance, is their music any less valid? If people like it they'll listen to it.

If a particular song strikes a cord with you, listen to it, enjoy it and support the artist. If it doesn't, don't. The musical experience ultimately is a negotiation between the listener and the song. The artist's motivations aren't relevant in my mind.

I think you're either missing my point or you're warping what I'm saying.

I don't have a problem making money from playing music.

But playing music for the sole purpose of making money seems like a mockery to me. People who put actual feel and meaning into their music are far overshadowed by media-worshipped musical titans who sit on thrones of cash and use gimmicks and "cheap music" to line their pockets.

Call it a good living, if you'd like. I'm not debating that they don't have the right to. They're not doing anything wrong, after all, and it's not as if it's a crime. But it's lowering the standards for musical talent to piss-poor levels when you can use GarageBand to make your melodies and rely on AutoTunes for your music to be popular.

Again, let me be clear that I don't have a problem with people making money off of their music. Honestly it's a great thing when you can find others who enjoy the sounds you enjoy and are willing to pay for it. But, as I said, it's almost like artists today put a harness and bit on their music, whip it in the ass and make it plow their fields, sow their seeds and reap their crop. It's a form of making money, not expression--Which was what I assumed music to be about from the day I first knew what music meant to me.

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

With that logic every artist and band would be broke and busking in a ghetto.

No, with that logic, people like Lady Gaga wouldn't exist.

I don't have any vision of the starving artist stereotype; I don't think all musicians have to be poor bums to create good music. I don't think music should be turned into something that's become more and more like a product rather than actual music, though. It's a record company formula that's been tuned up to make maximum efficiency out of the least skills actually needed. Quite frankly it's disgusting that people both buy the music in the first place and that they continue to accept it.

 

[Nouw]

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

From the outside a lot of art-based industries seem like "fun" and that they should be art-driven. But we live in a money-based society. People need money to live.

Do you think that most small-time musicians, who work during the day in say an office and spend their nights jamming or doing gigs in small pubs, don't you think that if they love music they'd prefer to be making money doing it? Of course most of them probably would.

If current musicians enjoy what they're doing, shouldn't they be entitled to make money as well? If someone's enjoyment comes not from the music, but the performance, is their music any less valid? If people like it they'll listen to it.

If a particular song strikes a cord with you, listen to it, enjoy it and support the artist. If it doesn't, don't. The musical experience ultimately is a negotiation between the listener and the song. The artist's motivations aren't relevant in my mind.

I think you're either missing my point or you're warping what I'm saying.

I don't have a problem making money from playing music.

But playing music for the sole purpose of making money seems like a mockery to me. People who put actual feel and meaning into their music are far overshadowed by media-worshipped musical titans who sit on thrones of cash and use gimmicks and "cheap music" to line their pockets.

Call it a good living, if you'd like. I'm not debating that they don't have the right to. They're not doing anything wrong, after all, and it's not as if it's a crime. But it's lowering the standards for musical talent to piss-poor levels when you can use GarageBand to make your melodies and rely on AutoTunes for your music to be popular.

Again, let me be clear that I don't have a problem with people making money off of their music. Honestly it's a great thing when you can find others who enjoy the sounds you enjoy and are willing to pay for it. But, as I said, it's almost like artists today put a harness and bit on their music, whip it in the ass and make it plow their fields, sow their seeds and reap their crop. It's a form of making money, not expression--Which was what I assumed music to be about from the day I first knew what music meant to me.

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

With that logic every artist and band would be broke and busking in a ghetto.

No, with that logic, people like Lady Gaga wouldn't exist.

I don't have any vision of the starving artist stereotype; I don't think all musicians have to be poor bums to create good music. I don't think music should be turned into something that's become more and more like a product rather than actual music, though. It's a record company formula that's been tuned up to make maximum efficiency out of the least skills actually needed. Quite frankly it's disgusting that people both buy the music in the first place and that they continue to accept it.

And I agree, but saying that artists and bands shouldn't get the money they deserve is wrong. In the moral sense. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, music should be a career and a way of living. It's just that some people use it to their advantage and etc.

My thoughts on this kind of stuff. I see how you mean they just try and pump out as many songs as possible.

 

[Chris^^]

well so much for liking simmons, he sounds like a pretty big dick

sounds to me like a baby dick with a big man syndrome, but I agree with the sentiment

 

[Bruin]

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

From the outside a lot of art-based industries seem like "fun" and that they should be art-driven. But we live in a money-based society. People need money to live.

Do you think that most small-time musicians, who work during the day in say an office and spend their nights jamming or doing gigs in small pubs, don't you think that if they love music they'd prefer to be making money doing it? Of course most of them probably would.

If current musicians enjoy what they're doing, shouldn't they be entitled to make money as well? If someone's enjoyment comes not from the music, but the performance, is their music any less valid? If people like it they'll listen to it.

If a particular song strikes a cord with you, listen to it, enjoy it and support the artist. If it doesn't, don't. The musical experience ultimately is a negotiation between the listener and the song. The artist's motivations aren't relevant in my mind.

I think you're either missing my point or you're warping what I'm saying.

I don't have a problem making money from playing music.

But playing music for the sole purpose of making money seems like a mockery to me. People who put actual feel and meaning into their music are far overshadowed by media-worshipped musical titans who sit on thrones of cash and use gimmicks and "cheap music" to line their pockets.

Call it a good living, if you'd like. I'm not debating that they don't have the right to. They're not doing anything wrong, after all, and it's not as if it's a crime. But it's lowering the standards for musical talent to piss-poor levels when you can use GarageBand to make your melodies and rely on AutoTunes for your music to be popular.

Again, let me be clear that I don't have a problem with people making money off of their music. Honestly it's a great thing when you can find others who enjoy the sounds you enjoy and are willing to pay for it. But, as I said, it's almost like artists today put a harness and bit on their music, whip it in the ass and make it plow their fields, sow their seeds and reap their crop. It's a form of making money, not expression--Which was what I assumed music to be about from the day I first knew what music meant to me.

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

Of course they do it for the money. People got eat dude. People gotta make a living and support themselves. It's the way the world works.

I choose to believe the sentimental belief that music should not be turned into an industry defined by the dollar like everything else. Honestly I think if you view music as a job, you shouldn't be making it to begin with--you're only creating an ugly bastardization of what true music is.

With that logic every artist and band would be broke and busking in a ghetto.

No, with that logic, people like Lady Gaga wouldn't exist.

I don't have any vision of the starving artist stereotype; I don't think all musicians have to be poor bums to create good music. I don't think music should be turned into something that's become more and more like a product rather than actual music, though. It's a record company formula that's been tuned up to make maximum efficiency out of the least skills actually needed. Quite frankly it's disgusting that people both buy the music in the first place and that they continue to accept it.

And I agree, but saying that artists and bands shouldn't get the money they deserve is wrong. In the moral sense. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, music should be a career and a way of living. It's just that some people use it to their advantage and etc.

My thoughts on this kind of stuff. I see how you mean they just try and pump out as many songs as possible.

Call it a good living, if you'd like. I'm not debating that they don't have the right to. They're not doing anything wrong, after all, and it's not as if it's a crime. But it's lowering the standards for musical talent to piss-poor levels when you can use GarageBand to make your melodies and rely on AutoTunes for your music to be popular.

-Me

Anyway, yes--listen to the radio and you'll hear the same songs over and over again. You wonder why they all sound the same and then you realize they're all based around the same premise.

At least, that's the popular music these days. There's a whole counter-culture of the pop genre that's underneath the surface, the only thing is that it's under-appreciated, hardly played and rarely heard by people that don't go directly looking for it.

 

[Red-Link]

When you buy a game, do you consider the payment as the game's actual value or as an donation for the developer to keep up the good work? We're no ordinary consumers looking for the best product with the best price, we're fans.

Hell, that was long. Being serious, though, this is exactly how I feel about it. I buy nearly all of my music, movies, etc. That's because I want the artist to get some return on it and I want to officially show my support for it. I do download things, but only when I wouldn't buy it on anyway or if there's no way it's available otherwise. There are a few exceptions, but I make a point of buying them eventually.

 

[qeinar]

Some of you seem to think shutting down 4chan would make anon stop. Thing is that is not the case; there are manny backup boards. 4 chan have been shut down on manny ocations so people know what to do if their fav anon img board is down. also there is no way gene can pin this on the owner of 4chan since he is probably not involved in the war. The operation site on the other hand he might be able to shut down.. Still the longer he resists the more anon gets involved..

 

[vxicepickxv]

You mess with anon, its going to be messy.

They are legion, they do not forgive and they do not forget. Expect us them

OT: I think its pretty stupid to be honest, Gene Simmons is not going to stop the hackers and at the same time, anon isn't going to turn Simmons into the new Jessi slaughter. A waste of time better spent trolling Justin Bieber fans if you ask me.

Who is this anonymous?

I'm 12, what is this?

Anonymous is basically the Ubermencht (I think thats how you spell it) that consists of the users of 4chan, a pretty malicious bunch, one that I personally wouldn't like to be threatening over the net.

It's not the entirety of 4chan, I know a couple of people who use 4chan that aren't /b/tards.

 

[Dys]

If they are that stupid to risk going to jail for that then that's their problem not his.

I suppose then we should line everyone who's been caught J walking against a wall and start firing. Yes, it's a stupid risk, but the punishment should still fit the crime. Rapists deal with less shit than the poor bastard who gets done for spreading copied music...It kinda sends the wrong message.

 

[Popido]

Right, so they have the right to freedom but nobody else does?
They want to play that way, so should we.

Uuh... go for it?

Let me break this for you so you can stop multiposting. There is no The Anonymous. Yet there is and your part of it. If you want out of it then go ahead and start posting with your real name and home address. As accessing internet doesnt require any ID verification, everybody is just tagged as anonymous in cyperspace.

Now, The Anonymous is manifestation born from an idea presented within the internet community that meets up with majorities requirements to be accepted as a great cause for justice and/or lulz.

The Anonymous itself is the purest form of humanity's emotions and logic. It has no gender, no race, no age, no religion, repulsing off anything that could taint it with personal distinction. The Anonymous is just as strong as the emotion and the logic that upholds it is. Therefore, attempting to use Anonymous as your personal army will do you no good. It will only ignore you.


Edit: Read humanity as internet community.