Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

Svenparty

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,346
0
0
tzimize said:
Space Jawa said:
tzimize said:
I wonder in time, if anonymous will be compared to say the hippie movement.
You mean seen as a bunch of smelly, crazy stoners who need to get real lives?
Yes of course, there are a lot of those. But they grew up, and most of them actually got jobs too. And while I am sure there are a lot of lazy scumbags among anonymous I am also sure there are a lot of very intelligent people who might even decide the direction of their respective countries one day. Thats the point, we all grow up, hippies and anonymous alike.

Even if the hippie movement was a bunch of stoners, they also protested what they didnt like. They were engaged in society, and cared about the direction it was taking. Anonymous are in some respects the same, they just represent a different era. I find the thought of reading about anonymous as a cultural phenomenon 50 years from now intriguing :)


This is a refreshing view on Anonymous, It has been said before that The Internet took away our power to protest because it made things so easy and nothing is really ever acheived. Their protests at least in the real world sometimes.
 

FLCLfan89

New member
Feb 17, 2010
1
0
0
whelp this is all I'm going to say on this subject, Scientology tried to sue anon, they couldn't find anyone to pin the blame on as Moot washed his hands of it.

Anon is the biggest troll of the internet, you argue with the troll and he wins, you don't argue with him he still wins...I am looking forward to this "fight" though.
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
I dunno where this is gonna end up. I find it pretty bold that old anon is coming back. (I kinda hope so) I haven't been on 4chan in ages since it started becoming more like a "facebook without borders" but if we're seeing old anon (05-06) then gene simmons is in for it. Anon is like a hacker. Check the hackers manifesto if you don't get what I mean. the FBI can't arrest everyone responsible, I'm sure there were hundreds of thousands of people involved (if not millions) If anything that'd be what anon wants, they're issue gets more publicity and this issue just got bumped up to full-scale war.
 

erztez

New member
Oct 16, 2009
252
0
0
tzimize said:
Anonymous are in some respects the same, they just represent a different era. I find the thought of reading about anonymous as a cultural phenomenon 50 years from now intriguing :)
Oh god, I just had a terrible, terrible thought.
What if, in 50 years, Anon will STILL BE HERE?!?!?!?!?
*hides in a corner and cries*
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
GLo Jones said:
Setsuri21 said:
Feylynn said:
Some people seem to misinterpret who exactly Anonymous are...

Anonymous is exactly that, an idea of anarchy, free speech, and anonymity that is not attached to any single person.
The reason you can't beat them is because you can't fight an idea, what is one man and a bunch of lawyers going to do? Ban freedom of expression? Develop emotion suppressing drugs so we can film Equilibrium 2 in real life?

Anon isn't just 4 chan, it's anyone that ever talks with their identity concealed.

This is why they have the Guy Fawkes mask.

That said, I'm not advocating for them, I'm not saying all of the people that use the name actually get it, or that they aren't going to far. But even if you beat the current anon movement time will prove that the idea is eternal.
Just to throw the little tidbit out there, I love how they use guy fawkes mask's. does anyone actually understand what guy fawkes was actually trying to do?
Well it's fairly well known that instead of simply overthrowing a twisted government, he was in fact trying to instate his own (I think).

But the masks don't represent that, they represent uprising, and demonstration of the dislike of a current system/society. It's easily recognisable, anyone can buy one, and it goes well with a suit.
True fawkes was going to overthrow and instate his own government, but it's not very well known that Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish and that he was going to restore Catholic domination to the Protestant nation of Britain, (during the time of the Spanish inquisition) Britain would have wound up Fascist like Spain if he'd succeeded.

edit: spain isn't fascist now, but they were during the war, I'm not giving a history lesson, look it up
 

orangecharger

New member
Nov 13, 2009
200
0
0
latenightapplepie said:
Interesting. I'm actually not sure who I want to win; I dislike both a great deal....
I think that sums it up nicely. It might be fun to watch if the coverage was better. :) Gene's site seems to be up right now, so I am not sure who is winning that fight.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
erztez said:
tzimize said:
Anonymous are in some respects the same, they just represent a different era. I find the thought of reading about anonymous as a cultural phenomenon 50 years from now intriguing :)
Oh god, I just had a terrible, terrible thought.
What if, in 50 years, Anon will STILL BE HERE?!?!?!?!?
*hides in a corner and cries*
I can imagine worse futures. 1984 comes to mind.
 

romxxii

New member
Feb 18, 2010
343
0
0
Gene doesn't know what he's getting himself into. If there's one thing 4chan hates, it's Jews. Rich Jews who bombed the WTC. Hey they said it, not me. :p
 

Hashcurt

New member
Aug 22, 2009
17
0
0
Good to see people haven't forgotten about his kid being the ripoff with Plaigarism [http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/radical-halts-nick-simmons-incarnate-amid-claims-of-plagiarism/] because Gene seems to have recently, though to be fair his obsession with freetards is a track he's been hawking out since 2007. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/gene_simmons_kiss_p2p_sue_them_all/]

Pro-Anon on this one purely because Simmons has been the mouth of the record companies for a long time and it's about time someone muted him. Before the internet bombshell, it was the CDR bombshell, and before that was the casette killing the record industry, which all in all is the biggest barrel of bullshit out there. (I have one of those "HOMETAPING IS KILLING MUSIC" sleeves in an old Jimi Hendrix LP. Still makes me smile.)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
My thoughts on the subject are fairly Pro-Anonymous here.

Anonymous is hardly a group of internet super heroes, and do a lot of things that are purely destructive for the laughs, and champion some causes I don't quite agree with.

On this issue however, I think what they are doing is well deserved. Gene Simmons was getting a bit excessive here, and is also one of the few guys who I don't think has any real right to be making criticisms.

To explain that comment, I want you to consider something. Right now the stereotype of a music pirate is someone who logs onto The Internet and downloads all the stuff from the latest albums being released for free, simply because they can and don't have to pay.

This does probably cost the industry a lot of money, though nowhere near as much as they claim. It's sort of like the assumption by the video game industry that every used game sale or pirated copy is money taken directly out of their pockets, which is not true, since ther eis no guarantee that any of those people would have purchused the product for full price anyway. Especially seeing as without such things prices would be cranked up.

That bit can be argued back and forth, and on a lot of levels Gene Simmons would be right if that was all that this was about.

The problem with music piracy, and why he is a Hypocrit, is the fact that the music industry in paticular tries to target people who already bought their products as pirates, and tries to force those people to effectively pay multiple times for the same material.

Understand that technology has changed quite a bit over the years. Back when people bought things like Albums, 8-Tracks, and even Cassettes there was no question that if you paid the money you had the right to that song. Music magazines and perodicals back in the 1970s and 1980s even encouraged people to both make backups of their collection, and transfer older material to newer material.

What's more, back in the day there were no issues with people bringing recording devices and cameras into concerts and such. A lot of those recordings and pictures of things like Woodstock? Those weren't professionally produced, but came from people who attended as say making a tape was considered reasonable if you were paying for admission.

When it comes to older bands, which probably includes KISS, a lot of them were not especially business savvy to begin with, and didn't make the best deals with their agents, they also didn't care about copies and media updates because any exposure to them as good exposure.

When some old fogey band who has been round since the Vinyl days comes out with a new, more business savvy perspective, and starts crusading, I have a few issues. Just because the world changed, and someone made bad desicians in their youth does not mean that they should be taking it out on their fans and gouging them. The Gene Simmons of today seems like the kind of guy who would go after a Baby Boomer for say transferring his Casettes to CDs rather than paying him for a CD seperatly, or transferring their CDs to a digital format without paying him a royalty. I doubt the Gene Simmons of 20-30 years ago would have ever thought of, or approved of such a thing, and what's more to the fan in question who DID buy his song especially back then with that understanding and those sensibilities, this is rather unfair.

Now, with newer performers who learned from the pitfalls of the older guys, the situation is a bit differant. Music conceived and performed right now is much more tightly controlled from the beginning, and your agreeing to a lot more, and the guys producing it set out with a much more mercenary intent to nickel and dime their consumers.

Given the agreements involved in music nowadays, it raises a totally differant question of right and wrong if you say download a "Hannah Montana" song because she's being managed much better from the very beginning than KISS ever was.

On the other hand, while Capitolism is a wonderful thing there are greedy bastards who take it to ridicuolous extremes and ruin it for everyone. The music industry is largely made up of those bastards. For all of the whining it makes major bank at the worst of times, and any layoffs and firings you see were probably going to happen anyway to optimize the profits made at the top of the totem pole.

Technically they are right however, as they are covering their product well. Whether they are corrupt, greedy, and fan exploiting really doesn't enter into it from a legal perspective.

Truthfully I do think that like most big businesses the Music Industry does need an attitude adjustment. How to go about that is a matter of debate however, and we know Anonymous' opinion on the subject through their actions. Do two wrongs make a right? Well that is for every person to decide for themselves. On a lot of levels I tend to think that since the music industry makes so much money from legitimate sales, that pirating doesn't really do much except pleasure the pirate. It doesn't deprive the industry of it's central revenues, which aren't these piddly little piles that they seem to imply. Simply choosing NOT to buy music at all despite the media hype is going to send a much stronger message. It's the people who keep all these music stores, the CD sections at big box stores, and other places in business (and justify so much floor space) that are the ones who can send the biggest message by simply not listening to the advertising, and what "all their friends" are apparently going to be doing (feeding into the hype) and just not buying the products. Very similar to what I have said about how to send a message to companies like Activision... hate what they do? Then don't buy games like the upcoming "Black Ops".

All of this rambling aside though, the bottom line is that Gene Simmons personally deserves what he's getting, because he is a hypocrit of the umpteenth degree. I'd go so far as to say that no musician of his generation/length of career can fairly speak on subjects like this due to how much things have changed. It's one thing for him to appeal to fans for money due to the era he started in, it's another to sit around and start screaming about theft when this is a guy who performed at a time when nobody cared if you made a casette while you were in the crowd watching a show, snapped pictures of the performers, and updating your media wasn't any big deal. All of these things changed, but especially when it comes to his earliest work which was not protected, I don't think he has a leg to stand on, the same goes for tons of other old time rockers and the like.
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
Okysho said:
GLo Jones said:
Setsuri21 said:
Feylynn said:
Some people seem to misinterpret who exactly Anonymous are...

Anonymous is exactly that, an idea of anarchy, free speech, and anonymity that is not attached to any single person.
The reason you can't beat them is because you can't fight an idea, what is one man and a bunch of lawyers going to do? Ban freedom of expression? Develop emotion suppressing drugs so we can film Equilibrium 2 in real life?

Anon isn't just 4 chan, it's anyone that ever talks with their identity concealed.

This is why they have the Guy Fawkes mask.

That said, I'm not advocating for them, I'm not saying all of the people that use the name actually get it, or that they aren't going to far. But even if you beat the current anon movement time will prove that the idea is eternal.
Just to throw the little tidbit out there, I love how they use guy fawkes mask's. does anyone actually understand what guy fawkes was actually trying to do?
Well it's fairly well known that instead of simply overthrowing a twisted government, he was in fact trying to instate his own (I think).

But the masks don't represent that, they represent uprising, and demonstration of the dislike of a current system/society. It's easily recognisable, anyone can buy one, and it goes well with a suit.
True fawkes was going to overthrow and instate his own government, but it's not very well known that Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish and that he was going to restore Catholic domination to the Protestant nation of Britain, (during the time of the Spanish inquisition) Britain would have wound up Fascist like Spain if he'd succeeded.

edit: spain isn't fascist now, but they were during the war, I'm not giving a history lesson, look it up
I knew it was something like that, but was COMPLETELY unaware that Fawkes had anything to do with the Spanish.
 

mr_pants66

New member
Oct 7, 2009
128
0
0
i just find it funny that he really thinks he has a chance against anonymous.
more powerful people have lost to anonymous than mr Simmons
 

ReaperzXIII

New member
Jan 3, 2010
569
0
0
He does realize Anonymous CAN find where you live and CAN make your life a living hell like that cat killer girl.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Paksenarrion said:
lacktheknack said:
Is there any way that both can lose? Please?
What are you talking about? It's a war on the internet. It's well past the "Pissing in an Ocean of Piss" allegory. It's more like the Water Cycle, but with Urine.
But you see, /b/ IS the urine in your analogy. So when Gene Simmons is done and gone, /b/ will have won.
 

Sephychu

New member
Dec 13, 2009
1,698
0
0
Like that, with but a flicker of a tongue, the hordes began to descend. Their screams rang into the darkness on and on until one could hear nothing but the monotone of their voices.

You break the law, you pay for it. I fail to see how this core moral was lost between childhood and adulthood. Or manchildhood in /b/'s case.

How is Gene Simmons a dick for defending the products he made? Is it OK to steal from rich people? Gene Simmons may have mentioned that he wanted people to lose their homes, which is indeed, very steep, but if you break the law, you pay for it. That is how it goes, and the reason for law.

I side with neither, but I wish someone would get it out of Anonymous's head that they can do anything. Shut down the internet for a while. Maybe if Gene's initiative finds something, people won't decide they can choose which bits of the law by which to abide.