Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Internet

Gene Simmons Threatens Anonymous Again and Gets DDoS'd 403

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the hack-and-lol-all-night dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gene Simmons Threatens Anonymous Again and Gets DDoS'd

Comments Filter:
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:12AM (#33946548) Homepage

    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...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:14AM (#33946570)

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

      • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:15AM (#33946610) Homepage

        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.

        • by Wowsers (1151731) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:22AM (#33946756) Journal

          Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

          • by infinite9 (319274) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @12:54PM (#33948542)

            Marketing triumphs high production values, experience, and talent.

            Wouldn't it be great if artists became popular because they were good?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Moryath (553296)

              Wow, you really don't know how this works in the real world, do you?

              In the real world, anyone with actual talent quickly gets weeded out. Next goes actual production experience, in favor of mastering the album way too fucking loud so that everything clips out (yeah, looking at you Metallica [wsj.com], you fucking tone-deaf retards).

              Next, if you don't have "the body" or "the look", forget it. Shitney Spears [youtube.com] and the teenybopper whores get millions despite being worthless and talentless, because the marketing machines p

              • by Omestes (471991) <[omestes] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @02:12PM (#33949690) Homepage Journal

                Actual music is almost dead in America. As for the world, actual music is more endangered than the Panda.

                If your talking about the big labels, and the top 40 machine, then you are absolutely correct on all your points, but, luckily, this is only a very small portion of modern music. Yes, it is the most visible, and has the highest share of public consciousness, but that scene still represents a tiny minority of the music that is out there.

                Right now, in your town, there are hundreds (maybe thousands, depending on population and culture) of small bands, some of which are VERY good. Most are crap, but some of them are better than anything the major labels have churned out in years. Finding which ones are worth the time is a bit daunting (currently, in my town, we have an obnoxiously ubiquitous metal scene, which aspires to recapture the most idiotic parts of 90's metal...), but I guarantee that there is something out there that you will like.

                Thanks to the internet, major labels are largely insignificant. It is trivial to find an acquire music from small labels, or individual bands, without ever touching the ancient media dinosaurs, this is now, and not in the future. Of the last 100 or so music purchases I've made in the last 5 years, only two were from major labels, this was completely accidental, I did not have the desire to "stick it to the man". The independent music is just better, at least to my taste.

                I would recommended some bands that are awesome and have nothing to do with big labels, but taste is subjective.

                I would guess that the big labels make around 90% of the profit, but only represent around 10% (if even) of the artists out there. In ten years they will be almost completely irrelevant. Yes, they are nice for marketing, and promotion. This is generally the case made against independently distributed music around here, small bands can't go on their own because they can't afford to be Lady Gaga (whose branding efforts might rival those of CocaCola and Nike). But who cares? If a band can't become huge without marketing they don't deserve to be huge. And small labels work wonders, insteading of having 10 labels with 10,000 artists, why not have 1,000 labels with 100 artists? Smaller labels have funds for promotion, and smaller labels allow more artist control (the only thing that matters). This is how things are going to develop.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @01:14PM (#33948834)

            Our four ... no ... Amongst our triumphs ... Amongst the aspects which allow us to triumph ... are such elements as marketing, high production values ... I'll come in again.

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:16AM (#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".

    • by shadowrat (1069614) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:16AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544)

        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.

        • by Artifakt (700173) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:36AM (#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.

          • by formfeed (703859) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @12:47PM (#33948410)

            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,

            Following that argument it would be really unethical to buy a Kiss CD. Good thing you never liked Kiss to begin with. Otherwise, if you really wanted to listen to Kiss, you would have very few options:

            1. Surpress your passion for music and suffer. -But you know it's for a good cause.
              Great, the suffering will be a sign that you're doing the right thing. (As long as you're Catholic or Jewish.)
            2. Copy the music illegally.
              Great, you break the law for a reason, fight the system. (And also save some money while doing it.)
            3. Buy only used CDs on yard sales and flea markets.
              Great, you beat the system, you crafty anti-capitalist. (And support pop-culture addicted teens so they can buy more stuff)
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Gene Simmons has gone as far as endorsing prison rape for file sharers. That's, simply put, psychotic.

            No, that's actually just heavy metal talk. As someone who has been involved in the punk, metal, and hardcore scenes for quite awhile, I can attest to that fact that metal-heads talk in these kinds of extremes pretty regularly. Saying the most outlandish, controversial, politically incorrect thing that comes to mind is pretty much par for the course of anyone speaking in the metal, punk, or hardcore languages. Hell...the Misfits wrote a song about raping mothers and killing babies....soooo, yeah, prison rap

        • by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:39AM (#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.
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:23AM (#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.
    • by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:17AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Stregano (1285764)
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by SuricouRaven (1897204)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xednieht (1117791)
      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?
    • by jayme0227 (1558821) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:21AM (#33946742) Journal

      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.

      • by holiggan (522846) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @12:07PM (#33947718)

        That's the exact, pinpoint moment when they switch sides from the "let's be rebellious and brake a window" attitude to the "that window is expensive and I'm gonna sue your for all you got"...

        Really? Take people's homes and cars over piracy?! Wish for jail rape for copying songs?! I wonder if this "big rock star" would have the same attitude if his kids (does he even have kids?) were doing it (if?! I'm yet to meet a teen nowadays that doesn't do it).

        Or perhaps, maybe, that's his exact position regarding drug abuse... How's that? Take the cars and homes and wish for jail-rape, for all the people caught with drugs, or using drugs, or selling drugs, or enjoying drugs. Now that's a crime with *real* consequences for other people, stuff that people might actually *die* from. I bet the "big rock star" agrees with me.

        • by hesiod (111176) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `reierhcskoon'> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @01:33PM (#33949106)

          That's the exact, pinpoint moment when they switch sides

          Normally you are right, but not in this case. Gene Simmons was never in it for the music. Right from the start, it was a business venture to him (y'know, showBUSINESS) -- it was always about the money.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          How's that? Take the cars and homes and wish for jail-rape, for all the people caught with drugs, or using drugs, or selling drugs, or enjoying drugs. Now that's a crime with *real* consequences for other people

          Selling certain drugs has consequenses for other people, but OTOH a runner is little different than a heroin junkie. Heroin only works becsuse it fits the brain's endorphin receptors and gives an almost identical high. However, I much prefer heroin junkies to runners, because the junkies don't run ou

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by darthdavid (835069)
            Exactly. 90% of the negative consequences of drugs come about because of their illegality and the remaining 10% mostly just effect the person doing the drugs (and thus it should be their choice). As something of a musician myself I'd be thrilled if someone was pirating my work (in fact, I've put it all up online for free). After all, if they're downloading it it means that they like it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 2obvious4u (871996)
          Yes he has kids. His kids are even worse than file sharers. His kids copy other peoples work and sell it as their own.

          Source. [plagiarismtoday.com]

          You can also do a Google search for Nick Simmons plagiarism and you'll get lots more on the story.
    • by codegen (103601) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:23AM (#33946800) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by John Pfeiffer (454131)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Darth (29071)

        Metallica encouraged tape trading of their shows and their demo tapes. Between songs during their sets, they told audiences to share their music. That is exactly how they got their record deal. They really didn't start giving a crap about people sharing their music until the whole napster thing. Even then, I think it's just Lars. I'm not convinced the rest care.

        Lars was always kind of an ass. He's a crafty business man, though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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

    • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:25AM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MozeeToby (1163751)

      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.

    • by patro (104336)

      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?

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <{ten.00mrebu} {ta} {todhsals}> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:12AM (#33946554) Homepage Journal

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
      • by hedwards (940851)
        Eh, just route all the traffic through both Russia and China and you should be fine.
      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:44AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by clone53421 (1310749)

          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...

  • by srussia (884021) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:12AM (#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.
    • by kellyb9 (954229)
      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.
      • by Artifakt (700173)

        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.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:23AM (#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?)
  • 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.
  • by tekiegreg (674773) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:14AM (#33946576) Homepage Journal
    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...
    • "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.
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:14AM (#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?
    • by rotide (1015173)
      Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!
      • by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:40AM (#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.

        • by rotide (1015173)

          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.

    • by pinkj (521155)

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

      Massive financial success.

  • by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:15AM (#33946602) Journal

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

  • Internet Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kellyb9 (954229) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:18AM (#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.
    • by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:21AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BobMcD (601576)

        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 w

    • 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/buildin
      • 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.
    • by Yaa 101 (664725)

      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.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      It's not internet terrorism, besides, it's Kiss, I hear they've got an entire militia. A veritable "Kiss Army" one might say.
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:21AM (#33946734)
    I don't know why, but I imagined Richard Simmons was getting DDoS'd and I was very confused.
  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:21AM (#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!
  • by grapeape (137008) <mpope7NO@SPAMkc.rr.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:24AM (#33946824) Homepage

    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.

  • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:29AM (#33946956)

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

  • 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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by spidercoz (947220)
      why aren't Motley Crue dead? the ones that SHOULD die never do
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BobMcD (601576)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gstoddart (321705)

        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.

        Not without some precedent though.

        Eric Clapton, George Harrison, The Stones, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Guns and Roses, Kurt Cobain, CCR ... probably countless I can't even think of off the top of my

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @12:30PM (#33948128) Homepage

      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?

      Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Doesn't do drugs. Says he never did, nobody has ever contradicted him on that.

      Also claims to have humped everything that ever came along, which you can take with a grain of salt. I'm sure his own count is inflated, but I'm sure he's never wanted for willing females.

      Gene Simmons is a nice Jewish boy who has always been about making money and selling his brand. He's not your typical aging rocker -- having watched a couple episodes of his TV show, he's an out of date old fool of a narcissist who is obsessed with his own image and making money in the worst possible way.

      In short, he's absolutely part of the problem with the RIAA mindset. As has been pointed out in this thread, advocating prison rape for file sharers (or Anonymous, or whomever he was referring to) goes to demonstrate he's a bit of a loon, and has way crossed the line.

      I thought he was irrelevant before his TV series. Now he's irrelevant, pathetic, and a lot more lame than I ever thought he was. At least his son seems to treat him like the old troll that he is.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:41AM (#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?
  • Love Gun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Is0m0rph (819726) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:52AM (#33947436)
    Who are these clowns? Kiss? You don't know who Kiss is? No. Never heard of them. They look likeidiots to me. No, no, no, dude. These are four of the smartest guys who ever lived. They're these Jewish guys that grew up in New York, and they put on guitars and makeup to get girls, and all of their songs are about fucking! I'm listening. Seriously, this song is called Love Gun, and it's about Paul Stanley's dick and how this girl's gonna get some of his dick! Cool. I didn't know Jews could sing like that. No. No. They couldn't at the time. That's why they had to dress like clowns. This got them girls? Get this! They've been getting pussy nonstop for 30 years! They're probably fucking right now, and they're old dudes! They put makeup on, and it's all good! No shit? You pull the trigger of my Love gun You see, Ronnie? His dick is the gun!
  • by cdrguru (88047) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @12:26PM (#33948050) Homepage

    There is no law on the Internet, except the "Law of the Internet".

    The Law of the Internet is simple: you can get away with anything as long as you don't brag about it. Oh, and if you piss someone off you may face unimaginable consequences.

    So, there are two lessons from this:


    1. Don't brag about your exploits as you will be punished if you do.
    2. Don't piss people off that are motivated to punish you.

    The thing to realize about point 2 is that you are always going to piss people off. It is unavoidable if you have any interaction on the Internet. Posting a picture of your dog on Facebook will piss people off that hate dogs. Posting a picture of a cat on Facebook will piss people off that hate cats. There is no escape from this. All you can hope is that the pissed-off person has better things to do than make your life hell.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...