Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

[Mcface]

Well, Simmons doesn't half-ass anything. I expect this to be a good show.

They have already DDOS a ton of his partner sites, found a sex tape where he cheats on his girlfriend/wife thingy, with a girl who wont even kiss him, despite him trying, and they plan on doing more.

Pretty sure he's lost..

Dude, his GF/Wife knows about that kind of stuff. Still, I pity the poor bastard who found and watched that thing.

doesn't really change the fact he is going to lose. hard.
They brought down facebook for 3 full days.
His site has been down for days, just back up today.. gene doesn't know what he doing.

 

[WarpedPerspectiv]

Random fact: Gene Simmons owns the copyright for OJ, the abbreviation for orange juice. Because nobody owned it, he took it.

 

[Eponet]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm the only person who's actually thankful for Anonymous while still dislikeing their actions.

 

[Space Jawa]

if anon loses, who will fight scientology?

South Park? The Government? Anyone with enough intelligence not to be taken in by their act?

 

[newfoundsky]

Anonymous just needs to go to the Doctor.

EDIT:

I also have

"We need some DL on those illegal DL's" , "Anonymous is about to get licked", and "Anonymous should dump the Guy Fawkes masks and go with Kiss makeup."

OT: I agree with Gene, to a point. You don't fine people 6.7 million dollars when they steal .99 of product. You give them 6 months in minimum security.

Of course, in my world you wouldn't be able to make money off of music. You would have to get a real job, like a programmer or truck driver.

 

[RaikuFA]

if anon loses, who will fight scientology?

South Park? The Government? Anyone with enough intelligence not to be taken in by their act?

look what happened when south park fought. they lost issac hayes.

and the gov wont do shit. scientology pays the gov to make sure theyre not a cult

 

[WarpedPerspectiv]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm the only person who's actually thankful for Anonymous while still dislikeing their actions.

You're aware Anonymous actually helped bring to justice people in videos that were abusing animals, yes?

 

[newfoundsky]

if anon loses, who will fight scientology?

South Park? The Government? Anyone with enough intelligence not to be taken in by their act?

And yet you name no one to take about the mantle.

 

[newfoundsky]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm the only person who's actually thankful for Anonymous while still dislikeing their actions.

You're aware Anonymous actually helped bring to justice people in videos that were abusing animals, yes?

They also went after pedophiles. SOMETIMES THEY'RE GOOD, SOMETIMES THEY'RE EVIL.

We shouldn't ignore the evil bits.


EDIT: Also, sorry for so many posts in a row. I got carried away.

 

[Socken]

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

It's funny because if a song of his is being pirated, and it hypothetically gets downloaded 100000 times, he loses 99000 bucks.

It's also funny because he really doesn't lose anything. The money doesn't just vanish from his account each time someone downloads a song. He just makes less than he could have made, assuming that everybody who pirated his music would buy it if they had to. And that is very questionable if you ask me.

 

[Eponet]

I can just listen on Grooveshark or Youtube or whatever, and that's good enough for me. I'll just grab the popcorn and sit back while I watch Gene Simmons and The Internet duke it out...

i hate to tell you this but that in itself would probably class as piracy. (youtube anyway, ive never heard of grooveshark myself.)

It's already a pretty unrealistic goal to severely punish everyone who downloads music illegally, so I highly doubt they're going to track down the IP addresses of every Youtube user who watches Rock and Roll All Night. Hell, even if that were to somehow happen, I would just have a story to tell my friends about how I was one of the victims of the Great Gene Simmons Internet Massacre of 2010.

unlikely at the present time yes (still im quite sure it would be a hell of alot easer to track down youtube users than music down loaders due to the fact they already have a solid lead on where the musics hosted).... although i wouldn't put it past some people, but do you really think most copyright holders care if its on you tube in a different file format with a picture, or a mp3 file on some torrent site. I think someone will go after youtube and its users eventually, in fact im sure of it.

Pirating a song with peer-to-peer software is different from watching a video on Youtube. If I download a track with Limewire, for example, I am knowingly taking music to keep for myself and play from my computer or on my mp3 player, when I would be expected to be paying for this by purchasing CD's or paying for it on iTunes. If I watch on Youtube, I am streaming the content on a site with advertisements each time I play it. Many musicians upload their own content to Youtube, and content on Youtube that is illegally uploaded is taken down or muted, because the uploader is actively abusing it, not the users who view the video.

then if thats the case it apply s to illegaly hosted tv shows on other sites, as there is no difference.

Just because its streamed doesnt make it legal, you are not paying to listen to there music and therefore are removing potential revenue from them by using youtube, sure some artists host music themselves witch is there's and that is legal (but the amount whitch isnt hosted by the artists themselves is huge), and youtube is doing that themselves the muting and the removing to try and appease copyright holders, it is working for now, just wait for them to get greedy enough though.

oh and yes streamed files are stored on your computer in case you didn't know.

I didn't say streamed files are legal, I said the viewers are not responsible for content posted illegally on a legal site, because it is not always clear whether or not a video has been posted illegally. If I see a video on Youtube of a song, and the name of the user is the name of the band's label, I have no way of knowing for sure if it was actually legally uploaded or not, since it could just as easily be a legally uploaded video as it could be illegally uploaded by a phony user.

Streamed videos are saved on your computer, but not in a form that you can watch/listen from your computer or save to a mobile device and watch/listen on that. The only way you can do that is with illegal conversion software. One cannot be held responsible for the content being passively downloaded in an unusable form, but one is responsible if one actively converts that streamed video into a file that is usable without access to its legal source.

i dont know if its the same from where your from but here, ignorance is not classed as an excuse here, its the same with handling stolen goods.

and actually streamed videos are quite easy to use again, for example youtube, videos are saved in a flv format, witch is very easy to copy and use, and hell alot of mp4 players support it natively without conversion.

oh and yes, most media players support this file format, you can play it without conversion very easily on your computer.

Where are you? In New Zealand we have a basic principal that on the surface sounds like what you're talking about (Ignorance of the law is not an excuse). That would mean that not understanding the laws isn't an excuse, however, not understanding the facts is.

i.e.: If you were tramping through a national park, then ended up in an adjacent padock, without any indication of it being private property then it's valid to claim that you didn't know that it was private property, and it was a perfectly reasonable expectation concidering that it looked just like any other padock that was part of the national park.

On the other hand, if you just walk into someone's home, you're not going to get off on the claim that you didn't know that trespassing is illegal.

 

[Agayek]

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

It exists because it's at least partially valid. It's a bunch of scriptkiddies with a handful of legitimately skilled hackers with entirely too much time on their hands. If you earn their ire, there is really very little anyone can do to stop them.

Personally, I don't let them stop me from saying or doing whatever the hell I want, but it is a huge hassle to have to deal with the fallout if/when they target someone.

 

[Eponet]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm the only person who's actually thankful for Anonymous while still dislikeing their actions.

You're aware Anonymous actually helped bring to justice people in videos that were abusing animals, yes?

I meant the bad bits >_>.

Anyway, its existance makes me feel so much more secure. Just having them there helps to deter injust campaigns. If there was no threat of retribution, I can just imagine what sort of oligopolictic actions certain industries might make. When I think about it, I can't help comparing it as similar to the laws within countries. They enforce standards using force on their own country, Anomymous just chose the internet, and they're much better benefactors than some.

 

[Travis Higuet]

I don't like nameless faceless weasels who think that other people's private property is free to take simply because they want it. I hope the FBI crushes these worthless sacks of animal waste. I know that total success just isn't possible, but I'll bet we can get a lot of douchey kids who are involved in jail where they can whine and ***** about the corporate "MAAAAN" trampling the same civil liberties they are so quick to write off for others when they stand in the way of their immediate desires.

and I suppose you have never downloaded anything illegal off the internet andd all of those scum are beneath your MIGHTY MORAL STANDARDS.

P.S most of those corporations tend to go out of their way to not pay taxes just because the rich people that run them believe that taxes
" stand in the way of their immediate desires"

I dont agree with what people that download songs illegaly do but sweeping moral judgments are as stupid as they are unhelpful to this discussion

I'm not talking about everybody who has ever downloaded a song (for the record, I pay for every one I download on Itunes) I'm talking about these Anonymous people. The ones hacking websites of people who get on their bad side. It's one thing to steal music, it's another thing to think you can punish musicians for not liking it.

 

[Travis Higuet]

I don't like nameless faceless weasels who think that other people's private property is free to take simply because they want it. I hope the FBI crushes these worthless sacks of animal waste. I know that total success just isn't possible, but I'll bet we can get a lot of douchey kids who are involved in jail where they can whine and ***** about the corporate "MAAAAN" trampling the same civil liberties they are so quick to write off for others when they stand in the way of their immediate desires.

Awww what? Is downloading music against your Paladin code or something?

Awwww is being a worthless thief not against your's?

 

[Worgen]

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

He's always been an ass.

Im starting to come to that realization, altho before now all my experiance with him was listening to some of KISS, seeing him a couple times on family guy, and seeing him once on the Shattners raw nerv or something

Yeah, music doesn't really show his dickyness (though I dislike the guy, KISS is awesome), just his womanizing nature.

if you have a tongue like his then your pretty much required to be a womanizer, that or a porn star

 

[Travis Higuet]

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

It's funny because if a song of his is being pirated, and it hypothetically gets downloaded 100000 times, he loses 99000 bucks.

It's also funny because he really doesn't lose anything. The money doesn't just vanish from his account each time someone downloads a song. He just makes less than he could have made, assuming that everybody who pirated his music would buy it if they had to. And that is very questionable if you ask me.

It's not relevant though. You're suggesting that walking into BestBuy and taking a TV without paying for it isn't necessarily stealing as long as nobody else was likely to buy that TV. When you gain control of a product against the will of the product's owner, then you are a thief, it is as simple as that. I know everybody wants to obfuscate reality in order to justify their actions, but it simply is what it is. Nobody is suggesting the death penalty, just maybe fine for those caught, with a minimum and a maximum on a case by case basis. The guys that need to do some hard time are the Anonymous people who think that they can go around damaging people's personal property in order to get them to shut up about not liking being stolen from.

 

[Tanis]

OT: I agree with Gene, to a point. You don't fine people 6.7 million dollars when they steal .99 of product. You give them 6 months in minimum security.

Because debtors prision has worked so well...

:/

 

[UberMore]

The problem is is that you cannot stop hackers...there's so many ways in which they can get around anything and everything. Hide their IP, piggy-back off of a wireless network and so forth...this battle should be a good fight.

 

[tycho0042]

well, I think the best case scenario is the people simmons has got on the case might catch a couple people for the attack but the whole thing seems absurd to me. there's only so much striking at an invisible foe one can do successfully. I'm not particularly interested in him being successful but it's nice to see more standing up against people too cowardly to take responsibility for their actions. Damned internet bravery