Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

Comrade Mateo

Inventor of the POWER STANCE
May 1, 2009
259
0
0
Holy fuckballs (yes, fuckballs) we have like 800 something comments on here.

Anyway, I couldn't begin to dive into the politics of 4chan (therefore I know little) but good for them. I am anti-anti-piracy too.

They still suck for doing that Minecraft thing, if they did.
 

SelectivelyEvil13

New member
Jul 28, 2010
956
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
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.
 

Gray Monk

New member
Sep 25, 2010
90
0
0
This is like saying please fuck up my shit more, oh look some guys did something that I don't like and I can't stop time to publicly say that I will stop them.
 

Smallells

New member
Feb 18, 2010
101
0
0
Random berk said:
Anonymous probably can be beaten, but not by Gene Simmons, unless he turns out to be the internet incarnation of Sun Tzu. From what I know of Anonymous, their campaigns are organised guerilla style. With an intelligent strategy, you could hit them hard enough to at least make them think twice about what they're doing, but the way Simmons obviously intends to confront them will just entertain them. Its the same way anyone they harass tries to fight them, and its completely the wrong approach.
Oh yes, I have no doubt that Anonymous *could* be beaten. However, even if he did and came out with his reputation relatively unscathed (which from what I can tell would be fairly impossible) - what he wants to do just won't last. Sueing EVERY person who's illegaly downloaded music is a gargantuan task that'll eventually die down. Either that or he'll try too hard and end up ruining his own reputation. To be honest, even without Anonymous - I have no doubt that Simmons can't achieve what he believes he can!
 

fletch_talon

New member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
Though I'm pretty sure that most the art we have these days is due to people being able to make a profit off of it. So yeah, "Art" can be a job. Or rather, a career.
And yet a sizable portion of the most compelling and important art throughout history was produced by poor men and women who were simply passionate about their work. The idea that money drives everything, including man's very ancient desire to create and innovate, seems insulting. I know I'm offended, but then again, I don't do everything for the promise of a cookie.
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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

EDIT: Shorter and less inflammatory.
-I think artists have a right to charge what they want for their art (if its too much people won't buy it)
-If you're poor or disagree with the price tag there are plenty of free alternatives that don't involve what is essentially theft.
-Someone being ridiculously rich does not entitle you to obtain their goods/services for free.
-An artist is someone who enjoys creating art, such a person is likely to view living off of their talent a good thing, this doesn't make them a sellout or any less of an artist.
-We need money to live, whilst it is possible to create something without intent to profit, doing so has no bearing on what kind of person or artist that you are.
 

S_K

New member
Nov 16, 2007
163
0
0
Something tells me Gene Simmons doesn't realise what he's getting himself into, The whole reason anon are so ballsy and fearless is because THEY ARE ANONYMOUS! Hell if some army force decided to take down anonymous I'd bet money over half the members would scatter like crazy like flys flying off shit so their identitys couldn't be discovered.
 

Random berk

New member
Sep 1, 2010
9,636
0
0
My post referred only to the actual conflict between Gene Simmons and Anonymous, but as to the reason for the conflict, you are absolutely right. Its not even worth it to Simmons to pursue illegal downloaders with the venom he has been displaying. Of the millions he has earned from music, a large percentage of that would have come from live performances. Unless he's a real miser, he'll realise that to stop illegal downloading of his music will take an awful lot more effort than its worth, if its even possible, and will drop it, though he'll probably be muttering under his breath about it for a long time.
 

newfoundsky

New member
Feb 9, 2010
576
0
0
tanis1lionheart said:
newfoundsky said:
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...

:/
No, you don't fine them, you charge them with theft, and send them to prison. They can get off on good behavior just like everyone else and go back and do it again. We call it justice.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
newfoundsky said:
tanis1lionheart said:
newfoundsky said:
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... :/
No, you don't fine them, you charge them with theft, and send them to prison. They can get off on good behavior just like everyone else and go back and do it again. We call it justice.
Because tossing in some kid in prison like you would an armed mugger for downloading a song or a movie or a game makes SO much sense.

Next you'll want to toss every women who's had a period in jail for having an illegal abortion.
:/
 

MetallicaRulez0

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,503
0
0
I'm not sure what he thinks he's going to accomplish by attacking anonymous. If they're smart and don't want to be found, there's not really a whole lot you can do to find them. So...
 

Popido

New member
Oct 21, 2010
716
0
0
fletch_talon said:
because people have deemed their art worthy of a price.
^this^

People deem the worth of the art. Someone will like it, someone wont. Someone will think that pile of dung is the most awesome thing in the whole world and someone will see it just as a pile of dung. Still, people have no right to destroy it, take it away or reclaim it as their own creation. But should people be able to create it themself, if they happen to poses such a talent? I think yes.

While people with such a talent are rare, it just happens to be that computers already poses this ability. The moment you "turn something into data", you're teaching the computer to produce something similar to your art using its own tools and resources. Thats how I feel about torrents.

Okey, lets go back to this:
People deem the worth of the art.
The moment that the art is made for profit, the moment that artist declares hes/hers art is worth of a profit, its nolonger an art but a product. Now I know this sounds odd and we could twist different scenerios out of this...Basicly I just blame the whole money hungry system for making this sound oddwordly. Or perhaps Im just stupid.

BUT, artist should be able to make living and even career out of their art. Not thru sales, but from donations. How will this change the situation from current? Much if your fans are ungrateful shitheads.

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.

Torrents are not the problem here, its the damn fanbase.

Rather then trying to up hold and enforce some medieval laws, artists should keep a contact with their fanbase. The only one getting hurt in this war is just Gene and hes fanbase....and some random troll might be martymdomed.

/rant
 

Bruin

New member
Aug 16, 2010
340
0
0
Akalabeth said:
Bruin said:
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.
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
Bruin said:
Akalabeth said:
Bruin said:
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.