Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

[Averant]

But no, I'm crazy. Keep living your way, sucking up to a bunch of assholes because you know they have power.

I find it hilarious that you just described the modus operandi of every single businessman on the planet. And you used it to describe the most lawless place on the internet.

EDIT:

Like I said, hope the entire system shuts down soon. Electronics, satellites, and the internet. Then lets see how they live, oh that's right we can't, because there's no more internet.

Really? Good luck with living then, because guess what? You're on the internet as well. No electronics, no satellites, no internet? You'd die just as fast as they would. We would ALL die just as fast as /b/. Because we're all dependent on the internet, electronics, ect. So by all means, commit suicide along with that world homocide you're planning there.

 

[Darks63]

I find it funny that he assumes that this group are all based in the US and can be all locked up. What about the ones in oher countries Gene? If ur gonna team up it better be with Interpol.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

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

Ya, he's a total dick for vowing to go after people who are engaged in illegal activities, including attacking his own site. He should learn that these crimes don't hurt anybody, and that poor college kids can't afford to buy music so should be given it for free.

Oh wait...

He's a dick for saying that he wants people to lose their homes, lose their lives and put them in jail for downloading a song that's worth $0.99

Yeah, that instantly made me switch sides when he said that...

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

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

says the guy who's name is legion. what an oxymoron.

GG anon. You have your work cut out for you. This sue happy country we live in is sickening. So what a college kid downloads a few dozen songs to put on his ipod, that justifies sueing him into financial oblivion and essentially ruining his entire life at that point over a few songs??? I'm not saying it should be without punishment, but come on, 5 million of a few songs is fucking stupid. Just think of the sales you DO gain from him showing the music to his friends and they go out and buy it, go to shows, buy t-shirts etc. Whatever. I know who's music not to buy.

Oh simmons... if it weren't for people like us downloading your shitty bands, they wouldn't get near the exposure or sales they get. So you need to STFU idiot. I never buy anything before I download some of it first. If I like it ill buy it and/or go see shows and buy other merchandise etc. Too many shitty bands now a days to waste even .99 on something before i've listened to it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Declaring war on Anonymous is tantamount to declaring War on any other abstract problem like Drugs or Crime or Poverty. And that has, historically at any rate, gone swimmingly.

Oh simmons... if it weren't for people like us downloading your shitty bands, they wouldn't get near the exposure or sales they get. So you need to STFU idiot. I never buy anything before I download some of it first. If I like it ill buy it and/or go see shows and buy other merchandise etc. Too many shitty bands now a days to waste even .99 on something before i've listened to it.

Because Kiss' popularity didn't skyrocket before the internet? I guess that Platinum record they had in 1976 was the result of some sort of time warp then. Or any of the rest of their stupidly popular albums over the next several decades before the internet was a thing.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Is there any way that both can lose? Please?

not if gene simmons takes down 4chan's site owner. take the site owner down and anonymous will have had a crushing blow. take down ebaum's world, and anonymous is finished.

Oh, you can't take down a site owner, he's not doing anything illegal idiot.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I can't describe how much you are missing the point.
Gene simmons is not the one taking peoples money here. I never said I agreed with what the record companies do, maybe you should pay attention.
You said real world protests do less than silly web based attacks, they do not.
These attacks are not "hitting home" they are hitting the guy next door who happens to agree with the "home"
See what I'm saying here? Attacking gene is pointless and childish. You ask who is acting like the spoiled brats here? The people attacking gene and the record companies.
Happy? Of course not,because you have to defend what these idiots are doing for some reason that you have yet to explain other than implying that Gene's comments are somehow harming you. They are not, they are just words.
The attacks against gene are pointless, how can you not understand this?

Yes, I did go off a bit on my own tangent, sorry about that. Gene's words are not harming me, but they do a fair bit to plunge the public into more ignorance, and further the ploy of the recording industries. For the sake of the public, and the future of the music industry, I am a little worried. A severe dropping off of creativity and innovative bands seems to spear the music of today, but this could be construed as my own opinion, so I'll leave it there. I guess I would just like to see artists treated more fairly, and although I don't really condone a DDoS attack as an appropriate retaliation, it seems that not much else works these days because of monopoly, or a giant that's too big to bring down and no one dares to question.

It always seems like that when we choose to do nothing.
This isn't working either, but there are things we can do that would work.
If we could organize a boycott (yes those do occasionally work) against specific record companies. This would be fairly easy to do since downloading music is pretty easy, nothing would have to change except you would pay nothing for your music.

Start buying albums from bands that are not owned by record companies (if you are lucky enough to find them)

Maybe if we take it seriously, and don't devolve into a bunch of idiotic hacker attacks, we can actually change something.

You can say it's never happened before, but it has. Boycotts have worked before, just as protests have, strikes, things like that. They have worked before, we're just trained by television into thinking they never work and that random acts of violence and rebellion (towards no real goal) work. They never do, we need to get organized if we want to change anything.

Btw, when i ask people about what they know about buying CD's and where that money goes, it's not my 'select group of friends', but people I know from different social standings and across 4 continents (not that I have that many friends,but i have been around). If I based that knowledge on a handful of work colleagues and weekend drinking buddies, that's like preaching to the choir and would just be very pretentious of me, might as well have made it up. I was a struggling musician myself one day too, if that accounts for anything.

Sorry, back OT: I'll actually agree whole-heartedly with this, as boycotting is something that would work, and is a much better, mature, and long term fix to the problem rather than cheap hacking attack, which is only a band-aid solution and doesn't really say anything more than 'you guys suck' rather than 'what you are doing is unfair'. So the only question is, how to rally/educate enough people to do this, it's harder than it sounds with a monopoly, just like getting everyone to convert to Linux/MacOS or some other kind of OS (but not that hard).

I'm not going to find the quote now but what you said about the power given to corporations is so true it's scary. It's not that they are just given power per se, but the control they have has no limits or controls in place. The loopholes allow them to swallow up everything else in their path, and if people don't do something about it, they carry on with their momentum like giant snowballs. Can you even blame them? Everyone wants to get rich, you can only blame the population for pandering into it. Bill Gates is a genius, and I'm sure many more in his position would do exactly the same thing.

Downloading music, getting money more directly to the artist, and a smaller portion to the site/server hosting them is a way of keeping the music industry alive and strong, while cutting out the corporate crap that influences everything that we see, read, or hear.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Gene Simmons doesn't take shit. We all know this. He's too big to fuck with. You don't dare fuck with him. If he says he's gonna do something, he's going to do it.

Bring out the pop corn, this is gonna be AWESOME!

Yes, he will be reveling in victory next to Metalica.

I support him, but I feel he needs more luck than anything else. However, he does have enough money to track some IPs and go to town on a few people. And assuming one out of the 10 people he sues succeeds (estimated numbers), that will pay for the other 9 cases and enough to track down 20 more for the next round.

Implying that the people he "sues" don't just file bankruptcy and give him the big finger and no money.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Declaring war on Anonymous is tantamount to declaring War on any other abstract problem like Drugs or Crime or Poverty. And that has, historically at any rate, gone swimmingly.

Oh simmons... if it weren't for people like us downloading your shitty bands, they wouldn't get near the exposure or sales they get. So you need to STFU idiot. I never buy anything before I download some of it first. If I like it ill buy it and/or go see shows and buy other merchandise etc. Too many shitty bands now a days to waste even .99 on something before i've listened to it.

Because Kiss' popularity didn't skyrocket before the internet? I guess that Platinum record they had in 1976 was the result of some sort of time warp then. Or any of the rest of their stupidly popular albums over the next several decades before the internet was a thing.

These are different times my friend. Less and Less people are listening to the radio, same goes for TV.

 

[PrimoThePro]

An epic battle of the ages. I am very interested to see how this will turn out.

 

[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.

Letting a group get more and more control simply because we are afraid is the worst thing you could ever do.
It's just gene now, it's just the crazy cult members before, but who do you think they're going to attack next?
It's just the internet, but it was supposed to be a place where we can exchange opinions and information freely. This is a group that is clearly against opposing opinions to the point where they attack those that say something they disagree with.

They're not going after Gene Simmons because they don't like his music, they're going after him because he tried to mess with their way of life. He wants to crack down on piracy (nothing wrong with that persay) and the internets biggest pirates had something to say about that. It would be like cracking down on laws, and then getting angry and pissed off when Captain Jack Sparrow shows up with the black pearl. What the heck did you expect to happen? Everyone goes 'okay Gene, because you said so, we will stop pirating your music. NEVERMIND we're actually listening to it because some of us like your stuff, no, you just care about money. You need more of it. Your TV show, your live tour, and the millions of albums sold aren't enough, you need MORE.'

I'm just saying if you DON'T provoke them they WON'T attack you. Simple. My post was not praise towards anon, it was simply 'Don't poke a bear with a stick and expect it to not eat you.'

Take this for added example:
http://thenextweb.com/shareables/files/2010/08/drm.png

Your logic is pretty flawed. First of all, he was not attacking them he was making ignorant statement. We have the right to say ignorant things, or would you like to give up that right too?

So nobody should speak against them because they might attack you? And this isn't terrorism in any way? We shouldn't speak out against the government because they have the power to lock you up and call you a terrorist so you never get a trial. Does that make any sense to you? I really hope not.

It's nuts. We should just ignore them and let them do whatever they want because if we don't we may be targeted next? We should just accept what they do because that's who they are? Bullshit. We choose who we are and they chose to be assholes that act against free speech.

Cool! No problem. You go ahead and tell them all exactly what you just said. Go right ahead! 4chan.com and go to the /b page. Tell me how it works out. (Double check your antivirus software by the way.)

Right, so because I can't do it nobody should?
I don't know enough about computers yet,and talking to those people is pointless.
God your obnoxious. I never said I knew how to fix this problem, but at least I admit that there is a problem. You would rather ignore it, assuming it would somehow magically go away. I don't have all the answers, I admit that, but at least I'm not diluting myself into thinking there is no problem and it's all Gene's fault for having an unpopular opinion.

But no, I'm crazy. Keep living your way, sucking up to a bunch of assholes because you know they have power.

Well hypocrite, if you're so angry about it, why don't you do something about it instead of yelling at me to get off my ass and fight them? Lead the battle yourself! Or do you just not want to/too scared to? Money where your mouth is.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

You know what offends me?
Someone implying that wanting to profit from my creative endeavours makes me less of an artist and if that last comment is anything to go by, less of a human being. The world we live in requires a few things to live, most of them require money. Art takes time, effort and usually money as well, but everything I create should be available for free? Why do you seem to think some random piece of shit on the internet's right to free art overrides my right to put a price on my time and my hard work?

You can want to profit from your creative endeavors all you like. You can even do so, if the market provides. But you can't expect to profit in the same way that a contractor or a teacher or a plumber expects payment. There is a marked difference between what you do and what they do, and I think it's a very important distinction.

There will always be people offering their art for free. Music, video, games, all of these are available for free online if the creator chooses.
If you don't want to pay for something, if you don't think its worth the price placed on it by its creator THEN FUCK OFF AND LEAVE IT ALONE. You don't have a right to listen/watch/play it. Someone else created it, they chose to make it available to others, they did so on their terms. If you don't like their terms, FUCK OFF.

Is the art not selling well?

I don't think art should be free. I don't steal anything.

I also don't think artists should create for the promise of profit, and I think crossing that line makes you less of an artist. Probably because that is NECESSARILY what happens when you're thinking of dollar signs instead of your art.

I interact with artists every day. I'm frequently walking through collections of artists' lofts, seeing their myriad displays. You know what I really see? A lot of extremely mediocre product. People shoe-horning themselves into the romantic artist lifestyle, expecting everyone else to support it, and running what is essentially a culture-con to facilitate said support. Good art is, by definition, rare. We've really got far too much of it.

I'd like to say I'm sorry for the swearing, but I'm not. I'm so sick of this argument, everytime I see it I want to set people straight, and yet... I can't because I keep thinking to myself, people should know this, people should realise that they are not entitled to anything. At least not anything so fucking unecessary to life as luxury items created by the hard work of others.

We're talking about different groups of people.

Do you really think your literally starving artists wouldn't have loved to be promised a cookie for their art? If someone wants to be an artist for their own enjoyment great, that doesn't mean they can't also choose to profit from it. If you love doing something that you can profit from, why would you choose to make a living any other way?

Because you (general) fucking suck at art? I've seen so many people who refuse to accept as much, and they've got an entire capitalist machine backing up their mediocrity. Bad art is just another thing we "consume".

These artists living extravagent lifestyles do so because people have deemed their art worthy of a price. If you don't think its worth that price that's your preference, but once again, you do not have a right to it due to that preference.

I don't think anyone deserves the sort of extravagant lifestyles we see today, but I've also got a fucking conscience.

Apologies if I've come across too strong or have misinterpreted or misrepresented anything anyone has said, its late and this is a post of built up indignant rage which should be taken as not being personally directed at just the quoted post but at all who share the beliefs discussed in my post.

What you've done is assumed I'm pro-piracy. I'm not. I'm anti-business, and I'm especially anti-business where art is involved. Today's capitalist philosophies necessarily corrupt quality, and art exists entirely as quality.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

And you shouldn't be entitlted to some ridiculously extravagent lifestyle for your trouble. Although, digressing once more, the tolerance of such extravagence is just another reason why we're in this economic mess.

This cultural lapse is indeed a great threat becaust it has allowed not only unwarranted luxury that is essentially turns famous artists and celebrities into American social royalty, but unscrupulous CEOs and politicians as well. Those with the monetary and political capital are the not only the ones exploiting conditions to suit their needs, they are often lionized by the ignorant masses like public heroes akin to Robin Hood. It is not uncommon to see low income households with political posters planted outside for candidates who's stances and plans operate against that individual.
Gene Simmons is proposing a system of legal favoritism granting disproportionate punitive power to those high enough on the social hierarchy. If Mr. Simmons' son shoplifted a magazine at the local shop, how much power would Simmons be willing to grant to the store owner? I'm sure that he would take umbrage if his son was sentenced to jail for 5 years over a $5 magazine.

Excellent post. This is also why I give zero credence to posters who blindly adhere to the letter of the law. Laws are mutable, and legislators are, at this point, undeniably beholden to compromising and corrupting influences.

 

[fletch_talon]

Apologies if I've come across too strong or have misinterpreted or misrepresented anything anyone has said, its late and this is a post of built up indignant rage which should be taken as not being personally directed at just the quoted post but at all who share the beliefs discussed in my post.

What you've done is assumed I'm pro-piracy. I'm not. I'm anti-business, and I'm especially anti-business where art is involved. Today's capitalist philosophies necessarily corrupt quality, and art exists entirely as quality.

Then I'm glad I did put that disclaimer in there.
I can see where you're coming from now, and agree to an extent.
I agree that you're not much of an artist if you only create "art" for a paycheck, but at the same time if someone wants to make money that way, more power to them.
Its no good looking down on the "artist" in this case, because they aren't forcing people to buy their stuff, its only because people enjoy their "art" that it makes them rich.

Basically there are those who supposedly sell art, but are really selling a product. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as people possess the free will to choose whether or not to consume said product.

You can want to profit from your creative endeavors all you like. You can even do so, if the market provides. But you can't expect to profit in the same way that a contractor or a teacher or a plumber expects payment. There is a marked difference between what you do and what they do, and I think it's a very important distinction.

I kinda disagree with this too. Depending on the art, its perfectly reasonable to expect the same style of payment as a plumber for example.
Commissioned art is the equivalent of a plumber being paid for a job. I don't see this devaluing the art in any way, its just giving someone what they want. If I want a portrait of a loved one for my home, does it stop being art just because I asked for it and paid for it?

Even wages/salary like what a teacher or similar would recieve is an acceptable way for some artists to be paid, videogame artists for example.

And sorry for the earlier misunderstanding, as I said, it was pent up rage towards people who do think that they have an entitlement to whatever the hell they want free of charge.
And apologies again if I've misinterpreted you again, though I certainly think I've gotten a better understanding of your views now.