Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gene Simmons Threatens Anonymous Again and Gets DDoS'd

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the hack-and-lol-all-night dept.

Security 403

BussyB writes "Rather than shutting him up, the 'Operation Payback' DDoS attack on his websites only made Simmons more angry and outspoken. None of those threats seemed to bother Anonymous, however, and the group promptly launched another DDoS attack on both of Simmons' websites and rendered them inaccessible once again."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Something I find interesting (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33946548)

It always seems like it's the largest and most sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.

Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946570)

I noticed you didn't say "the most talented musicians"

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33946610)

Absolutely not. Without highly knowledgable producers/engineers, most mainstream artists wouldn't be given a glance.

When it comes to music, high production values and experience can trump talent.

Re:Something I find interesting (4, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 4 years ago | (#33946756)

Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

Re:Something I find interesting (0, Redundant)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 4 years ago | (#33946848)

'When it comes to music, high production values and experience can trump talent.'

Amen, in the last 5 years I have brought maybe 10 bits of music, all from the artist direct (or their website). But music from the 'big boys'? naah, nothing.
Tomorrow night I will (as I have most Wednesdays for a couple of years) go to a band night in a nice bar in town, and pay good money to listen to people with genuine talent.

My spending on music has increased in the last 10 years...

My Spending on the RIAA and their minions has decreased to zero in the last few years.

MuHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa Loosers.

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33946924)

That's pretty much the case with me as well. There are a TON of "bedroom" and "local studio" musicians out there, putting out original and interesting music. I see no reason to line the pockets of rich fatcats who throw crumbs at the people that earn them money.

I'd much rather support only the musician.

Re:Something I find interesting (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | about 4 years ago | (#33947254)

The age of mass comsumption of music is coming to an end (sort of). Many people still comsume from American Idol or Pop radio, but a growing group like the parent above and myself are becoming more focused on smaller acts, nniche genres, and local artists.

Perhaps this is just me getting older, but I personally have completely revamped how I digest music in the last 10 years, and am now far more focused on bands most people have never heard of (I dont mean this in a pretentious hipster kind of way, just in a 'this is what appeals to me' kind of way)

There will always be Pop music. The quesiton is how much it will decline and how much other options will become available.

Re:Something I find interesting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946810)

autotune

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33946622)

The largest and most successful musicians are the ones that most effectively act as employees of powerful record companies. Part of being an effective employee of those companies is believing them when they say "X is the reason why your sales are down".

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Interesting)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 4 years ago | (#33946630)

or is it the shrewdest businessmen who become the largest and most successful musicians? Kiss was a business. It was about marketing and maximizing profits. Of course the people at the head of that machine are concerned about every angle they could pursue and every dime they could possibly get.

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33946660)

Again though, the amount of money earned from album sales is piss compared to everything else (merchandising, touring, etc.) Why be so vocal about something that doesn't bring in much money, yet risks pissing off your fans...you know, the people that buy your merchandise and go to your concerts.

Just doesn't make sense.

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | about 4 years ago | (#33947094)

It doesn't make sense because it isn't a reasoned position, just an emotional one. Gene Simmons has gone as far as endorsing prison rape for file sharers. That's, simply put, psychotic. It used to be I didn't buy Kiss merchandise because I didn't particularly like Kiss (and I didn't and still don't infringe their copyright either). Now, the way Mr. Simmons is talking, I don't buy Kiss merchandise because I'm concerned he's so far over the edge he'll use the money to try and get draconian revenge, far beyond any proportionate concept of justice, on some kid he elects to make an example of.

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33947170)

Because Kiss was always about being corporate whores. I mean it's not about the music, it was about how fully they could sell out for more money. And if the corporate masters don't keep pushing it there's that many fewer lunchboxes and breakfast cereals sold.

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 4 years ago | (#33946794)

Nonsense! With Kiss it used to be about the music, man! Well, that and the lunchboxes, posters, cartoon shows, movies, guest appearances, fast-food tie-ins, TV specials, KISS Army fan club, clothing line, Halloween costumes, makeup line, books, toys, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm forgetting about. But the music was in there somewhere, I'm sure of it.

Re:Something I find interesting (3, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#33946938)

Well, that and the lunchboxes, posters, cartoon shows, movies, guest appearances, fast-food tie-ins, TV specials, KISS Army fan club, clothing line, Halloween costumes, makeup line, books, toys, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm forgetting about.

Yeah, you forgot the KISS branded casket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_Kasket [wikipedia.org]

Now if someone replicated on a 3-d printer, then ole Gene would be rightly annoyed. But copying the music? He doesn't lose any real money from that.

Re:Something I find interesting (4, Informative)

jbeach (852844) | about 4 years ago | (#33947112)

You're right. The music was in Ace Frehley and Peter Criss. Who then got fired.

Re:Something I find interesting (5, Funny)

Microlith (54737) | about 4 years ago | (#33947324)

Sure as hell wasn't computers. Gene Simmons didn't have a computer growing up [toastytech.com] and look what happened to him.

Buy your kids a Banana Jr. 6000 today!

Re:Something I find interesting (4, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33946636)

Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway?

That's not true! They're also paid quite well by the recording industry to speak out against piracy!

Re:Something I find interesting (0, Offtopic)

fishbowl (7759) | about 4 years ago | (#33947186)

>That's not true! They're also paid quite well by the recording industry to speak
>out against piracy!

Do the record companies pay them more or less than they actually lose to piracy?

I wonder if they declare these losses for insurance or tax purposes?

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Insightful)

Stregano (1285764) | about 4 years ago | (#33946670)

You mean like how gangster rappers talk about killing and stealing, but when you steal their music, they get angry. I just think it is amusing. Daniel Tosh said it better, but I can't track down exactly what he said

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 years ago | (#33947132)

I like to imagine the executive from marketing who gets the job of telling the producers that the market research says songs about beating up your girlfriend will make the most money.

Re:Something I find interesting (3, Insightful)

xednieht (1117791) | about 4 years ago | (#33946690)

Damn right, musicians need to stop being so lazy and get out there and perform. Does the guy that designed or built your car get royalties every time you get in it? Does the guy that designed or made your clothes get royalties every time you wear them?

Nothing against artists, but they really need to get out there and perform more. Earn a living like everyone else you lazy bums.

I wonder if Simmons pays royalties to the designers and builders of his website?

Re:Something I find interesting (1, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 4 years ago | (#33946994)

Does the guy who designed your car have to go drive a racecar every weekend so he gets paid? Does the guy who designed your clothes have to go work at WalMart so he gets paid?

Re:Something I find interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947248)

Fallacy:
Not only they don't have to parade, but they are ONLY PAYED ONCE.
And not each time they hurt our ears with their mickey screams.
Die beast! Die!

Re:Something I find interesting (4, Informative)

jayme0227 (1558821) | about 4 years ago | (#33946742)

I think a lot of the most successful musicians end up starting their own labels. Simmons certainly did, as referenced in the article. This gives them a stake in the game and even more reason to be anti-piracy.

Re:Something I find interesting (3, Insightful)

codegen (103601) | about 4 years ago | (#33946800)

Actually quite a few of them(such as Mr. Simmons) go on to be producers and/or label owners and discover how much more money there is on the other side of the microphone. Of course they are much more vehement against piracy then. However, the public tends to remember them as the musician, when really they are speaking as the label owner.

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Interesting)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 4 years ago | (#33946804)

All the more ironic given that this is probably because of his son's blatant plagiarism of popular Japanese comics.

But while you're on the subject, I've always found Metallica's opposition of filesharing to be most amusing, since it's widely understood that they gained initial popularity from the circulation of bootlegs of their live performances. (In fact, if I remember the documentary I saw correctly, this bit of information may have come directly from their own mouths.)

Re:Something I find interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946818)

It always seems like it's the oldest and formally sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.

Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...

There fixed that for you.

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#33946820)

It's in their best interest to keep the labels happy though. Sometimes the private jet, the pool, the mercedes, aren't actually owned by the musicians (though they'll say that they are on MTV Cribs) but are actually loaned out by the labels so that the band can live the high life while they're on their streak of popularity. You make the label money, they take care of their top money bags to keep them with the label. You fall off the charts? Want to switch labels? Well they're going to repo that car and give it to the next big shot in town.

So when the largest and most successful musicians seem to be slaming their FANS because they want to enjoy the music, it's because the record sales are keeping them in the Hollywood lifestyle. Perhaps you might be unaware of this, but sometimes when you sign up with a label, you can't actually go on tour without the labels permission. Then they've got you by the balls where you can't make money unless they let you.

Re:Something I find interesting (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 4 years ago | (#33946850)

Gene Simmons has always been a businessman first a performer second and an artist a distant third. He has stated in interviews he had ideas for merchandising KISS paraphernalia long before they had a record deal. It's not surprising at all that his instinct is to sue anything that hurts his enterprise.

Re:Something I find interesting (2, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 years ago | (#33946882)

Since their last album they operate their own label (Kiss Records), the same is true of a lot of the big name, super successful, anti-piracy bands. Considering that is only one of their many albums though, it's probably true that they make more money touring, but if they self publish another couple of albums that might not be the case.

Re:Something I find interesting (1)

patro (104336) | about 4 years ago | (#33946918)

Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway?

I'd rephrase it: Don't they make enough money anyway?

If someone is that rich does it really matter if not everyone buys his records? Isn't the free publicity worth more than earning even more money?

Re:Something I find interesting (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#33947238)

Bullshit. That guy is a has-been attention whore. It's best to simply ignore the senile old dude.

Childish (0, Offtopic)

mccalli (323026) | about 4 years ago | (#33946552)

Shouting louder isn't a legitimate way to win an argument.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Childish (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33946588)

Sending pizzas and cardboard boxes is apparently the best Anonymous can do. DDOS isn't even their big gun.

Re:Childish (2, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33946658)

Note to self: Next time I send pizzas to someone as a prank, don't pay for them before hand...

Re:Childish (3, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33947070)

Yeah, because then you would scam the people bringing the pizza, not the people it is delivered to.

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946898)

Meh, depends how much he likes pizza. After every pizza place in his neighbourhood has been spoofed a few times and added him to their "NO WAY" list, he might feel differently. Still, it does seem a bit silly to keep poking a stick in the wasp nest, even if you know the worst they can do is sting you.

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946680)

YES, IT IS! (Captcha: winnings)

Re:Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946960)

YES IT IS, BECAUSE I'M LOUDER.
THEREFORE YOU LOSE.
GOOD DAY, SIR.

And Slashdot ruins the joke because of some "etiquette" nonsense.
What if i wanted to post a really awful snippet from an EULA? You know, those sections nobody reads anyway because they are sore on the eyes?

But really, this is more about annoying him as well as wasting his resources than trying to win any argument.
Anonymous are always in it "for the lulz", only a small handful actually care about some message.
It is basically revenge tactics. They piss over sites Anonymous internet users use frequently, you think they'll happily just take it in the behind?
Hell no. Just like you wouldn't stand for a group trying to take down, say, a park, or a entertainment complex of some sort.

These people are holding back the evolution of entertainment delivery. They can't stop it, and they are wasting money fighting it. They will lose the shouting match. They could easily make a huge profit via internet delivery methods if only they'd get out of the mindset that you need to sell high price over lesser sales to gain a profit.
Low price + high availability = large numbers of sales = probably a larger profit than you would have got from the higher price. Bandwidth prices are pretty damn low, in comparison to burning discs and delivering them to every corner of the world.
So seriously, what is the deal with these people? Why won't they change? The method is already proven to work, iTunes, Netflix and the countless other internet distribution services are pretty successful.

This battle will probably continue on for a good couple decades. After that, i'm pretty sure it will just become a part of history as we all celebrate by downloading the next big hit, no nonsense payment system, no accusations of piracy before you download it and party on.
Eh, i'm thinking of the ideal future, let me dream.

Re:Childish (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 years ago | (#33947270)

Shouting louder isn't a legitimate way to win an argument.

Cheers,
Ian

YES IT IS!

How to handle Anonymous (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 4 years ago | (#33946554)

Wait until they get bored of you and move on.

Doing anything else will extend the attacks, because your actions just make it that much lulzier.

Re:How to handle Anonymous (2, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#33947008)

There will come a point where - if enough attention is consistently drawn to their actions - various government entities will actually take notice and feel compelled to act.

Re:How to handle Anonymous (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33947240)

Eh, just route all the traffic through both Russia and China and you should be fine.

Re:How to handle Anonymous (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 years ago | (#33947284)

Eventually. The problem with acting against anonymous is that most of them are just pranksters doing the equivilent of a bit of light graffettiing on the internet, and often minors too - and yet there are so many, their collective damage is considerable, and it's impractical to take some action against them all. Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.


The RL equivilent would perhaps be announcing that every day one random person caught littering shall be executed - it's also hugely excessive as a punishment, but it's a whole lot cheaper than hireing enough police to give every litterer a small fine, and you can be sure that the streets would get a lot cleaner.

Re:How to handle Anonymous (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#33947388)

Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.

You give Simmons too much credit... the *IAA came up with that tactic.

Amusingly, if it had worked for the *IAA, Simmons wouldn’t need to be working himself up over this...

Be careful about what you say (2, Interesting)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33946556)

FTFA:“Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don’t let anybody cross that line,” Simmons encouraged his peers.

He should have listened to his mother and watched that tongue.

Re:Be careful about what you say (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | about 4 years ago | (#33946696)

Yes, I think every time that someone says something we don't necessarily agree with - we should all resort to vigilante justice. That will surely add legitimacy to the cause that we support.

Re:Be careful about what you say (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about 4 years ago | (#33947332)

The other half of that quote is where he endorsed prison rape for file sharers. I'm not saying we should resort to vigilante justice over the disagreement, but let's be clear just what was said - what many of us don't necessarily agree with is a claim that file sharers deserve to be made some HIV infected murderer's bitch. Gee, I wonder why some people moved from polite disagreement to vigilante justice over a little thing such as that.

Re:Be careful about what you say (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33946784)

I think that quote really shows how the customers are viewed here...

(Now why won't my mother join the boycott of the RIAA?)

Re:Be careful about what you say (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | about 4 years ago | (#33946980)

Knowing the nature of Gene Simmonz, it was probably his parents who taught him that one. It's ok, if Anonymous reads /., I'm sure that got Gene one more attack planned. Got to love it. Watching the likes of Lars Ulrich, and Gene Simmonz get their panties in a bunch over how people choose to share their media online, is like watching an elderly person yell at the tv...and almost as ineffectual.

-Oz

Re:Be careful about what you say (1)

fishbowl (7759) | about 4 years ago | (#33947352)

>He should have listened to his mother and watched that tongue.

His mother wanted him to be a lawyer. He wanted to be a rabbi.

The most insightful thing in TFA (1)

kent_eh (543303) | about 4 years ago | (#33946566)

If nothing else, it certainly will be entertaining to see how long both sides can keep this pissing match going.

Not much more to say, really.

You're missing something here Gene... (3, Interesting)

tekiegreg (674773) | about 4 years ago | (#33946576)

The group "anonymous" is everyone and it is no-one...it is what was once your devoted fan-base likely. But now that you've threatened them with jail and a pack of angry lawyers they have become defensive and your worst enemy. They are the embodiment of the hearts you are trying to win towards your music and the mass that is disappointed in your reality.

No I'm not doing this, I honestly didn't hear about these attempts until right now...and have never been a big fan of KISS's music from the get go...

Wrong. (1)

Petersko (564140) | about 4 years ago | (#33946738)

"The group "anonymous" is everyone and it is no-one...it is what was once your devoted fan-base likely."

His fanbase is comprised primarily of people in the generations that still buy records. "Anonymous" probably never bought a single Kiss album. I can be pretty sure if they bought "Dressed to Kill" they aren't DDOS'sing anybody.

Free Speech. (0, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 4 years ago | (#33946578)

So, in effect, Anonymous is proving that they don't believe in free speech. Brilliant.

Re:Free Speech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946656)

>implying anon believes in anything at all, let alone consistently

LOLQUE?!

Re:Free Speech. (0)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33946758)

Next thing you know, you're gonna be saying that people against the Iraq/Afghanistan war are against America!

Seriously, how is this indicative of Anonymous being against free speech? Their very name suggests they support free speech. They didn't cut out his tongue, they didn't sew his mouth shut, and they haven't prevented him from saying what he wants; they just took his website down.

You do know there are ways other than a personal website to communicate...right?

Re:Free Speech. (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 4 years ago | (#33946930)

No, Microsoft did it.

Has Anonymous really prevented him from speaking? It seems to me that right now, Anonymous is in the part of the conversation where the more childish of the two tries to shout down the other party. Gene Simmons will still be able to speak (even though he might sound like an asshat).

Re:Free Speech. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#33947156)

In fact it’s more that they do believe in free speech.

Free speech has a dark side... if everyone speaks at once, who do you listen to? Who do you answer?

They’re dousing his sites’ server with a shitstorm of so much free speech that it can’t figure out who to listen to and who to ignore...

Re:Free Speech. (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 4 years ago | (#33947300)

So, in effect, Anonymous is proving that they don't believe in free speech. Brilliant.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. I don't approve of file "sharing" or Anonymous's DDOS methods here, but I think it is important to make the distinction. A better way would be to boycott Kiss, call your local radio stations and say "I won't listen to your station any more until you stop playing Kiss", stop drinking Dr. Pepper, etc. if you disagree with what he's saying.

Anonymous is going to be responsible... (1)

Xilver (1607931) | about 4 years ago | (#33946584)

...for the very first Distributed Denial of Blood Supply to the heart. The poor guy's heart is weak already :p

Gene should really love Anonymous (4, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#33946590)

With KISS' classic rock jams such as 'Take Me' 'Hooligan' 'Dirty Livin' 'All Hell's Breakin' Loose' 'Any Way You Want It' 'Get All You Can Take' 'Thief In The Night' and 'When Your Walls Come Down', Gene Simmons should really identify with Anonymous, not try and attack them.

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33946666)

Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (3, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 years ago | (#33947172)

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!

This genuinely isn't Gene's fault. It's yours. You're the ones thinking that his youthful endeavors were EVER about anything other than becoming a successful, AND WEALTHY, musical icon.

He doesn't lead the choir at his local church here, folks. He's a rock legend. The distinction is greatly about how far you're willing to go to make a buck.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33947314)

Isn't that basically what I said? He wants money and fame? And how is it my fault? I don't even like the band, never purchased their music, never went to their shows, never bought any merchandise. Heck, I've never even downloaded one of their tracks.

I thought you were replying to someone else and clicked mine by mistake. But you quoted me.

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (1)

X-Power (1009277) | about 4 years ago | (#33946782)

I noticed a problem with your string at 'All Hell's Breakin' Loose'.

Also, are you friends with Little Bobby Tables?

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | about 4 years ago | (#33947042)

I guess Gene thinks that as long as he is getting free distribution, he ought to shoot for free publicity while he is at it.

-Oz

Re:Gene should really love Anonymous (1)

pinkj (521155) | about 4 years ago | (#33947152)

What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?

Massive financial success.

He'll have to learn the hard way... (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#33946602)

You simply don't win an argument with a group of trolls by feeding them.

Follow Gandalf's strategy instead (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 4 years ago | (#33946838)

The way to defeat trolls is to keep them arguing with each other all night long, until daylight arrives and they're no longer a threat. (ok, in this case it's because their mothers have sent them off to school, but the idea is similar)

Internet Terrorism (3, Insightful)

kellyb9 (954229) | about 4 years ago | (#33946664)

Ridiculous. I don't agree with how IP law is implemented, but it doesn't mean I have the right to go and hack someone's site. If you want the laws to change, lobby congress and vote in people who agree with your point of view on this issue. This is basically internet terrorism.

Re:Internet Terrorism (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33946722)

Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?

Re:Internet Terrorism (2, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 years ago | (#33947236)

Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?

The issue, though, is that 'Anonymous' is a myth. These are real people committing actual crimes, and since they're being so brazen about the conflict, there's an excellent chance that someone WILL take the fall for all of it. It would be one thing to launch an attack at a site unannounced, but to repeatedly use the same methods at the same target, that's just stupid. A scapegoat will be produced if this continues, I promise you that.

So agenda or not, Parent is right. This is not the way to prove Gene wrong. Not today, not in this manner.

All I can think is, 'poor, stupid, kid'.

Re:Internet Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946748)

Using the very system that is causing the problems to fight the problems is not exactly productive...
Besides, in context to reality, it's not damage. It's a network blockage of a certain website.

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33946946)

ok, glenn beck, rope it in will ya?

Re:Internet Terrorism (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33947110)

You do realize that the internet is an international community, and pointing out certain actors in your local village really fails to convey any meaning to that far greater number of people who really don't know or care who this person you mention is, right? Believe it or not there are more people in the world who don't know this Glenn Beck than people who do.

Re:Internet Terrorism (2, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33947368)

Believe it or not there are more people in the world who don't know this Glenn Beck than people who do.

yes, and I envy them for it

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 4 years ago | (#33947064)

Its not "internet terrorism" its just the same thing as if people were protesting outside a record label, the goal is to cut off access to it. Its not "hacking", Anonymous "hacked" the RIAA using SQL injection to erase the site.

The "real-world" equivalent to a DDoS isn't blowing up a building, but simply having a large amount of people in front of a building. The causes are the same (lots of people trying to get into the building/site) and the results are the same (few people can get in the site/building).

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 years ago | (#33947384)

Depending on jurisdiction. I recall that in some situations, such a protest is illegal. Mostly europe. Less so in the US, due to that 'freedom of assembley' line in the first amendment - though even there, some states have passed laws requiring protestors stay X feet away from any building enterance or from any legitimate customer. Mostly in response to some pro-life protests outside clinics which worked by obstructing acccess for days on end. Those people are really persistant.

Re:Internet Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947092)

THE. GOVERNMENT. IS. COLLUDING. WITH. THE. RICH. AGAINST. THE. POOR.

Why do many of you not get this yet? It doesn't matter how much we vocalize, they know what they want to do and they will do it. The only recourse we have is making them know we're not weaklings to be pushed around. We can fight back. Soon this will not happen only online but we will see violent rebellion in "first world" countries if our dear leaders do not get the message.

I'd feel no sadness to hear news of the summary execution of executives of corporations nor high political officials. They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches.

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33947166)

dude, I can't wait for that day, but I'll believe it when I see it

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33947276)

This is not true at all, although your attempt to turn this into a "class struggle" has been noted.

The government is actually whoring itself out to only a select few "rich" people. There are quite a few wealthy individuals that want nothing to do with the government, have not lobbied the government, have not contributed to political campaigns, etc. Tarring everyone with the same brush merely cements the foundation of your argument in ignorance.

"They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches."

And what have you done, other than what you were told? Wealthy individuals have organized labor and productivity to create things. Yes, they make money by doing it - but left to your own devices you'd be sitting in someone else's field eating their crops. You need your boss as much as he needs you, you fucking ingrate. If you don't like what you do and feel you have something worthwhile to contribute to society then feel free to get out there and prove yourself. Offering to smash the entire world is not productive at all, especially when you start dreaming that by this an idiot like yourself would suddenly find himself "in charge".

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 4 years ago | (#33947216)

Anonymous is not a homogeneous group of people, they are more like your random person in the street, anonymous can be a small group of 13 year olds having fun with DDossing a douchebag in this case.

If you rise up high in this world, there is always the risk to fall deep, especially when one has a big mouth, a lot of people tend to have problems with big mouths.

Re:Internet Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947266)

Ridiculous. I don't agree with how IP law is implemented, but it doesn't mean I have the right to go and hack someone's site. If you want the laws to change, lobby congress and vote in people who agree with your point of view on this issue. This is basically internet terrorism.

Exactly! And remember, terrorism's okay if you're on the same side as it!

Oh, crap, did I say "terrorism"? Sorry, I meant "activism". Or whatever Slashdot's using to rationalize it nowadays.

Re:Internet Terrorism (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33947346)

It's not internet terrorism, besides, it's Kiss, I hear they've got an entire militia. A veritable "Kiss Army" one might say.

Richard Simmons (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#33946734)

I don't know why, but I imagined Richard Simmons was getting DDoS'd and I was very confused.

Re:Richard Simmons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947178)

I made the same mistake, then I read all the comments on KISS and got confused.

Eventually I figured it out though.

The KISS of death (3, Funny)

GPLDAN (732269) | about 4 years ago | (#33946740)

You show us everything you've got
You keep on dossin' and the net gets hot
You drive us batty, we'll sue your ass
You say you wanna go for a spin
The party's just begun, we'll let you in
You kill our blog, we'll drive a spike to your chin
You keep on shoutin', you keep on shoutin


I wanna kick Simmons ass all nite and blog every day!
I wanna kick Simmons ass all nite and blog every day!

there is no outage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33946816)

there are no websites at http://simmonsrecords.com/ [simmonsrecords.com] or http://genesimmons.com/ [genesimmons.com]

Kiss goooood...pirates baaaad (5, Interesting)

grapeape (137008) | about 4 years ago | (#33946824)

Sadly Gene is about 5 years behind Metallica in learning that biting the hand that feeds you hurts you more in the end. I've got a friend that would buy every piece of Kiss crap that hit the shelves from CD's to action figures. He got sick of Gene's crap last year over this kind of thing and has been slowly selling his entire collection on ebay. It doesn't help that the album prices for digital downloads are nearly 50% higher than buying the CD. Take Kiss Alive II for example, at Wal-Mart and Best Buy its $9.99 while on Amazon and Itunes its $13.99, who in their right mind would buy the digital version when they can buy the disk and just rip it? I dont use a cd player anymore, but still buy CD's for this specific purpose....but according to Gene im a pirate for it. I realize your an old man Gene but you pretend to be hip and relevant try and at least understand the technology and why people do what they do, maybe then you could be part of the solution rather than a contributor to the problem. I dont think Gene realizes that the same people he is wanting to sue are the same people willing to buy Kiss caskets and trinkets, with his known level of greed you would think he would be more concerned with the revenue stream than someone downloading a copy of a song they have likely already purchased on Vinyl, Cassette and CD.

Inaccessable? (3, Funny)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 4 years ago | (#33946956)

Was anyone even trying to access them in the first place?

Didn't he do a lot of drugs? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33947002)

What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?

I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs? (2, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33947196)

why aren't Motley Crue dead? the ones that SHOULD die never do

Re:Didn't he do a lot of drugs? (2, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 years ago | (#33947328)

What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?

I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.

Did you ever consider that the ENTIRE thing was a front? Not just the costumes, but the drug lifestyle and the whole thing? Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.

impotent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947046)

Can there be anything more impotent than a DDoS attack against a website that is not a primary source of income for the intended target? Of course Simmons is going to keep being vocal. What is the worst that is happening? A DDoS attack. Oooooh, I bet that has him shaking in his boots. Anyone who has an opinion on the web is going to run into some self styled anti-free speech fascist that is going to do things to shut them up, steal identities, vandalize websites, denial of service attacks, e-mail bombs, etc. In the end the only thing the DDoS attack fascist does is prove they are a fascist doing everything they can against freedom of speech on the web.

Re:impotent (0)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33947338)

they're just fucking with him because he's a douche, they're not "anti-free speech fascists"

you should look up what a fascist actually is instead of just tossing it around because it sounds bad, if anything, Gene fits the bill of a fascist way closer

Gene, you may want to stay quiet (4, Informative)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33947200)

Anonymous regularly takes on the church of scientology, one of the most aggressively litigious entities in the world (WORSE than the RIAA/MPAA) and stays ahead of them. You really think that your facepaint and unnaturally long tongue are going to scare them any?

You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947208)

I have a BAAAADD feeling about this.

Lesson learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33947374)

Society frowns on those who publicly threaten to rape people they don't like.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?