Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Going against the internet in an attempt to stop piracy, as Gene Simmons and the cops, it's like taking a knife to a middle-eastern country and demanding to be their ruler while they all have assault rifles aimed with at least a 200% chance in blowing off your head.
Trying to even jail every single one would overflow the jails before we even got half of them filled up.
I'm on a neutral standpoint here with this but all I can say is. Have fun trying.
Trying to even jail every single one would overflow the jails before we even got half of them filled up.
I'm on a neutral standpoint here with this but all I can say is. Have fun trying.
The music industry has been a dinosaur kicking flailing for a while in a tar pitt trying it's best to avoid it's extinction for about 10years now. Gene has declared this "war" for no good reason because the music industry has changed, Gene is still in the past trying to grab onto every last cent he's made and so is everyone else in the business. Everything about this industry is about to evolve into something more like it did when vinyls came alone. Stop being a dinosaur gene and try being a man.
I'm not that big a fan of /b/ neither, there just stupid to be honest and that big speech sounded like something ripped from fight club. I could care less
I'm not that big a fan of /b/ neither, there just stupid to be honest and that big speech sounded like something ripped from fight club. I could care less
Fair point well made, guess everyone does it. Still doesn't really change my opinion I've never really liked them but I wouldn't say they are cyber terrorists or vigilantes, just a couple of people acting like little childrenTorrasque said:
Sooo..okay i havent read the entirety of the Thread, only about 8 pages in because the Opinions somewhat tend to repeat, so excuse me in case i repeat something that was posted 10 pages ago.
First off, Gene Simmons is a Idiot. He may have been famous at one Point in time, but now he isnt. He's just a old Guy. You know the kind, those old People that tell you of "the good old days" and how they know everything and they are always right anyway, that is Gene Simmons now. I never understood what made that Guy so famous to begin with, the Music isnt especially good, but that might just be my Taste there and the Guy is a Dick of gigantic Proportions with his retarded Rants at Subjects he either has only a narrow view on or doesnt even understand in its basic concept.
On the other Hand, i have seen alot of arguing about Anonymous as either those "evil Internet Kids" or those "RL Superheroes against Scientology". Fact is, they are neither. Defining Anonymous is pointless to begin with, you have to consider a certain fact. Everyone on the Internet is Anonymous, that means, everyone reading here, everyone posting here, belongs to that "Group". Anonymous is the Internet and the Internet is Anonymous. True there have been RL Interventions of sorts due to certain "Members" of them, but they dont do anything because its good or evil, each single Person within the collective whole does whatever it wants. Those Guys protesting Scientology? Just a few of them. Those "fighting" Gene Simmons? Again, just a handful by relation. Its all down to what they want to do, or can be arsed to do, and their own moral Choices. For example, there have been Anons that pointed out that old Lady who threw a Cat in a garbage can, on the other Hand, its that exact same "Group" that would be responsible for the existence of the Video and Pictures of a Cat being burned alive.
So really, they arent good or bad entirely, each single Cell of the Organism acts on its own, only those rare Occurances when thousands of Cells work in a single Group to achieve a certain Objective do take most notice of them. Now have a good Day.
First off, Gene Simmons is a Idiot. He may have been famous at one Point in time, but now he isnt. He's just a old Guy. You know the kind, those old People that tell you of "the good old days" and how they know everything and they are always right anyway, that is Gene Simmons now. I never understood what made that Guy so famous to begin with, the Music isnt especially good, but that might just be my Taste there and the Guy is a Dick of gigantic Proportions with his retarded Rants at Subjects he either has only a narrow view on or doesnt even understand in its basic concept.
On the other Hand, i have seen alot of arguing about Anonymous as either those "evil Internet Kids" or those "RL Superheroes against Scientology". Fact is, they are neither. Defining Anonymous is pointless to begin with, you have to consider a certain fact. Everyone on the Internet is Anonymous, that means, everyone reading here, everyone posting here, belongs to that "Group". Anonymous is the Internet and the Internet is Anonymous. True there have been RL Interventions of sorts due to certain "Members" of them, but they dont do anything because its good or evil, each single Person within the collective whole does whatever it wants. Those Guys protesting Scientology? Just a few of them. Those "fighting" Gene Simmons? Again, just a handful by relation. Its all down to what they want to do, or can be arsed to do, and their own moral Choices. For example, there have been Anons that pointed out that old Lady who threw a Cat in a garbage can, on the other Hand, its that exact same "Group" that would be responsible for the existence of the Video and Pictures of a Cat being burned alive.
So really, they arent good or bad entirely, each single Cell of the Organism acts on its own, only those rare Occurances when thousands of Cells work in a single Group to achieve a certain Objective do take most notice of them. Now have a good Day.
Who says I'm defending anything? If you can change any of this, then by god, you have my full support. But you're missing a few factors here.derelix said:
Let's start with the Native Americans. The point you made by bringing them up is actually quite irrelevant. Not because of the point you were trying to make (which I do see), but because of how it would actually work out. The Indians never grew up with high-technology. They never grew up with anything near it. They were basic people with basic desires. They never knew of plasma tv's or governments, and I highly doubt they would even want them if they saw them (either that or they'd revere the plasma screen as a god). We of the modern society, on the other hand, did grow up with high-tech. And unlike the indians, we would know what we were missing when it was all spirited away. And believe me, that would not go down well in the least.
Also, how many native americans were there? There would have been less indians in the entire damn continent than there are people in NYC. And NYC is only one city among many. An entire world, losing its technology all at once? Society would crash, and it would crash hard. And we would not be able to live like the "horrible horrible lawless native Americans, who didn't have a big government and television to protect them from themselves."
The indians didn't need them. We, being what we are, do.
We don't? Really? You think the entire world population can survive without technology? A hell of a lot of people would starve before anything could stabilize, and I mean a hell of a lot. How do you think we harvest so much food? How do we make canned goods? How do we make vitamins?derelix said:
Perhaps I'm being too broad here, saying that we'd lose all technology. But I don't think I am. A lightbulb is an electronic, it uses electricity. A tractor is electronic, it uses circuits and wiring. This world uses electronics in everyday life. All modern technology is based off of the invention of electricity. All modern tools and interfaces today use some form of ciruitry or electronics. Take that away, we're screwed. I've no doubt we'd survive, but it'd be going through hell and back.
Oh, and the businessmen. The main idea of capitalism is that you can succeed with luck and your skills. The point is to make as much money as you can. The main way to succeed in business, hell, the BEST way to succeed, is to snuggle up to the guy with the most power. Money equals power, and vice versa. The best way to survive is to NOT be on the side against that power. Standing up for your beliefs, ethics, morals, etc, is very nice and all, but it's kind of like playing the lottery. Only if you get very luck does it succeed. All the other times? Wasted effort.
Also, you're talking about a world where the community makes it's own laws and enforces them however they want. Really, now? Anarchic much? Hell, this society with its governments and corporations is bad enough. Now you want to revert to the Dark Ages? I'm as appalled at you as you are at me.
Okay, so i actually read that part now. What you are referring to is something entirely different from the Interdependence of modern Technology. Of course we could survive without a big TV, or a Computer, or the Internet. We couldnt survive without Electricity though, Water Recycling Plants, Food Factories and so forth, there are two Reasons for that. The first is the most simplest of all, we are dependent on that due to the large Population if you consider the global scale. Without it a few billion would die, which equally points to Reason 2 in this, we have forgotten how to hunt for Food and make due with the simplest of means, we have become so dependent on that simple Fact that without it, we would die.derelix said:
Oh sure Humans would survive, but if that were to happen, our whole Soceity would collapse almost instantly. All Progress would be lost in mere Weeks from the Point of removal. We would devolve into a tribal form of Soceity. Which then again leads to another Point you made, you spoke about making Rules and enforcing them, depending on values, may i remind you that, in such a Case, its a simplistic Rule of the strongest? Rape, Murder and whatnot would be common by comparison. You know why? Because its Nature, the strong survive, the strong make the Rules, so all those Rapists and Murderers and Thieves would be the ones making the Rules because they are less "moral" about it. The only Reason we have even advanced as far as we have is because due to that rapid Progress, due to technology and the requirement for a fitting Soceity.
At the end of the Day, if you strip all that away, every single piece of current Day Soceity, we would be Animals by comparison, because deep down, thats what we are, we just learned to supress these darker Parts of our Nature, at least most do. Or to put it more simple even, take it all away, all of the technology, all laws, everything. You end up with 6 Billion Humans who all want to be the only one that is right, its simply everyone against everyone after that Point.
May not make much sense, but im rather tired right now, so please excuse me for that.
Ah, Gene Simmons vs. Anonymous. A guy so old I wouldn't have been surprised to learn he was dead, and the collective will of thousands of internet posters.
Alright, let's set up the situation here.
Anonymous is thousands of people, and not all of them download music. And even less of them are part of the attacks on Simmons. Probably. (I cannot cite a source, I'm guessing here)
Then, he declares war on Anonymous. Alright, so now he has the attention of ANYONE who dislikes the idea of being raped in prison.
Simmons is worth, give or take, $300 million.
Add to that, the might (Hehe) of whatever law enforcement he can muster.
Thus far, the FBI have proven that they can...
Act on Anonymous info and stop REAL crimes, and totally FAIL at taking on Anonymous in any way shape or form. They work better together than appart, as the majority of people prefer obeying the law.
...At least, the ones they agree with.
As for Simmons' resources, all the moralfags (Er, Anti-$cientology Anons) have been succesfully combating an entire cult, who use illegal activity, large amounts of (deceptively gained) cash, and hundreds of members to cripple anyone who stands against them.
Simmons, however, is fighting a legal battle!
So, the battlefield is different! He cannot use illegal activity, for one, without it being so well publicised that he'll be splattered all over the news faster than World War III. Whereas Anonymous, as much as they SHOULDN'T, obviously, can use whatever means they like, because they are not one individual, or even an actual organisation. They are not organised. They are just like-minded in various ways, working towards a common goal with individual actions.
I won't argue the legality or morality of Pirating or whatnot. I am not an expert. I do not download music, but nor do I begrudge those who do. I simply don't care. There hasn't been an album worth purchasing in the last ten years for me.
I can see both sides of the argument. Being an Aussie gamer, I see ridiculous prices for horrible, horrible games being equal to the ridiculous prices for genuinely good games. So I can understand wanting to test them out before purchasing.
I use other methods that don't cost me (Friends with disposable income who love games + borrowing = Oh hey this sucks OR Oh hey I like this, I'm willing to shell out for it) to test them, because the quality is SO varied at the same price range. However, I can also see why an artist (and their developer, producer, whatever) wants to get paid when they put money into a project.
The problem is, if the game (or whatever) is crap, THEY DON'T DESERVE MONEY. Their job is to provide entertainment, enjoyment and/or ART! But there is no way to KNOW whether it is worth the money without paying for it, according to the law!
Bull.
Demos are lies and misdirection, and honestly, who listens to the radio any more?
The only "moral choice" I can plainly see is the decision to actually go out and pay for the stuff you actually plan to continue using. Even if you still use the Pirated version (Take THAT, lousy DRM that ruins the game!), at least paying for the good stuff ensures that it's going to keep getting made based on quality, not the number of people who bought it who didn't know how to/want to pirate it.
Yes, it's hard to justify to your wallet the fact that you're paying for something you already, um... "borrowed"... but to ensure quality, and keep the good artists alive, it's the only way.
Oh, and be sure to spread the word if the (insert art item here)is good!
As for Gene Simmons, he's not losing ANY sales to Pirates. Anyone pirating his recent stuff is stupid or weird, and people Pirating his old stuff wouldn't PAY for it either way, because they aren't going to give money to someone who hasn't done anything worth payment since before I was born!
He is just a greedy, old, washed up man, going against the young, powerful will of the internet, as decided by the majority of it's users!
And as for those who think going after 4chan will actually hurt Anonymous, I have some Snake Oil here that will cure your stupid.
It began on 4chan, sure, a lot of things did. But these days? Heh.
No, Gene, 4chan is not a real target any more.
eBaumsWorld, however, is the CORE of Anonymous. Take it out, and it will be a blow like they have never seen before.
Anyway, I THINK that's all I have to say on the matter...
I tend to ramble, sorry.
And, to make it abundantly clear, I'm with Anonymous, if only because they're right and Gene Simmons is a giant (insert phallic joke).
Anonymous can only be said to have acted when a majority agrees. Power to the people. The supposed goal of governments around the world has been achieved by a "group" with no leader, structure, culture, race, or purpose.
It's really quite interesting...
Alright, let's set up the situation here.
Anonymous is thousands of people, and not all of them download music. And even less of them are part of the attacks on Simmons. Probably. (I cannot cite a source, I'm guessing here)
Then, he declares war on Anonymous. Alright, so now he has the attention of ANYONE who dislikes the idea of being raped in prison.
Simmons is worth, give or take, $300 million.
Add to that, the might (Hehe) of whatever law enforcement he can muster.
Thus far, the FBI have proven that they can...
Act on Anonymous info and stop REAL crimes, and totally FAIL at taking on Anonymous in any way shape or form. They work better together than appart, as the majority of people prefer obeying the law.
...At least, the ones they agree with.
As for Simmons' resources, all the moralfags (Er, Anti-$cientology Anons) have been succesfully combating an entire cult, who use illegal activity, large amounts of (deceptively gained) cash, and hundreds of members to cripple anyone who stands against them.
Simmons, however, is fighting a legal battle!
So, the battlefield is different! He cannot use illegal activity, for one, without it being so well publicised that he'll be splattered all over the news faster than World War III. Whereas Anonymous, as much as they SHOULDN'T, obviously, can use whatever means they like, because they are not one individual, or even an actual organisation. They are not organised. They are just like-minded in various ways, working towards a common goal with individual actions.
I won't argue the legality or morality of Pirating or whatnot. I am not an expert. I do not download music, but nor do I begrudge those who do. I simply don't care. There hasn't been an album worth purchasing in the last ten years for me.
I can see both sides of the argument. Being an Aussie gamer, I see ridiculous prices for horrible, horrible games being equal to the ridiculous prices for genuinely good games. So I can understand wanting to test them out before purchasing.
I use other methods that don't cost me (Friends with disposable income who love games + borrowing = Oh hey this sucks OR Oh hey I like this, I'm willing to shell out for it) to test them, because the quality is SO varied at the same price range. However, I can also see why an artist (and their developer, producer, whatever) wants to get paid when they put money into a project.
The problem is, if the game (or whatever) is crap, THEY DON'T DESERVE MONEY. Their job is to provide entertainment, enjoyment and/or ART! But there is no way to KNOW whether it is worth the money without paying for it, according to the law!
Bull.
Demos are lies and misdirection, and honestly, who listens to the radio any more?
The only "moral choice" I can plainly see is the decision to actually go out and pay for the stuff you actually plan to continue using. Even if you still use the Pirated version (Take THAT, lousy DRM that ruins the game!), at least paying for the good stuff ensures that it's going to keep getting made based on quality, not the number of people who bought it who didn't know how to/want to pirate it.
Yes, it's hard to justify to your wallet the fact that you're paying for something you already, um... "borrowed"... but to ensure quality, and keep the good artists alive, it's the only way.
Oh, and be sure to spread the word if the (insert art item here)is good!
As for Gene Simmons, he's not losing ANY sales to Pirates. Anyone pirating his recent stuff is stupid or weird, and people Pirating his old stuff wouldn't PAY for it either way, because they aren't going to give money to someone who hasn't done anything worth payment since before I was born!
He is just a greedy, old, washed up man, going against the young, powerful will of the internet, as decided by the majority of it's users!
And as for those who think going after 4chan will actually hurt Anonymous, I have some Snake Oil here that will cure your stupid.
It began on 4chan, sure, a lot of things did. But these days? Heh.
No, Gene, 4chan is not a real target any more.
eBaumsWorld, however, is the CORE of Anonymous. Take it out, and it will be a blow like they have never seen before.
Anyway, I THINK that's all I have to say on the matter...
I tend to ramble, sorry.
And, to make it abundantly clear, I'm with Anonymous, if only because they're right and Gene Simmons is a giant (insert phallic joke).
Anonymous can only be said to have acted when a majority agrees. Power to the people. The supposed goal of governments around the world has been achieved by a "group" with no leader, structure, culture, race, or purpose.
It's really quite interesting...
No offense to the man but he's in for a fight he cant win, if people want it but don't want to buy it just a download they'll get it. He can set out the rules create new laws against downloading from the web but her cant control the people's will. That will make them more aggressive on this i do remember seeing Metallica trying to do the same with Napster and they pissed a lot of fans.
Other than the fact that there are more people that have gone used to downloading music from the Internet they just cant go back to buying the music at the stores.
Other than the fact that there are more people that have gone used to downloading music from the Internet they just cant go back to buying the music at the stores.