Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail

from the good-luck,-gene dept

A couple of weeks ago, Gene Simmons made one of his ridiculously misguided attacks on file sharers (he does it every few years). Despite the fact that KISS is a perfect example of a band that makes a ton of money from scarce goods that are made more valuable the more people are aware of their music, Simmons has this misguided notion that “suing everyone” is the right strategy. Of course, as we pointed out at the time, he’s obviously bluffing, because he’s had the opportunity to do so for years and he has not done so.

Either way, his antics caught the attention of the folks behind “Operation Payback,” from the group Anonymous (an effort that I still think is equally misguided), and they took down Simmons’ website with a DDoS attack (after an apparent dispute internally over whether or not Simmons should be a target).

Either way, it appears that the attack only sharpened the rhetoric from Simmons, in his standard speak-first-understand-later manner. He posted on his site that he was working with the FBI to “sue their pants off” for “hacking” his site:

Some of you may have heard a few popcorn farts re: our sites being threatened by hackers.

Our legal team and the FBI have been on the case and we have found a few, shall we say “adventurous” young people, who feel they are above the law.

And, as stated in my MIPCOM speech, we will sue their pants off.

First, they will be punished.

Second, they might find their little butts in jail, right next to someone who’s been there for years and is looking for a new girl friend.

We will soon be printing their names and pictures.

We will find you.

You cannot hide.

Stay tuned

Well, good luck with that. It tends to be a lot harder to identify folks behind a DDoS attack than you might think. Also, I’m curious why the FBI even cares, but we’ve seen the FBI kowtow to celebrities in the past, so it’s possible. Either way, all this has done, so far, is to get Anonymous back to taking down Simmons’ website. My guess is that, just like his previous comments, this looks like Simmons as all-talk-and-no-action. But, the more he tries to become the latest version of Lars Ulrich, the more he’s going to regret it.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
76 Comments
JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Gene is as crass as they get.

This man was never a rebel. From the get-go he was all about the dolls and the comic books and the lunch boxes and the branded coffins. This guy should be in the dictionary under “corporate rock”.

Of course this makes the whole “sue the bastards” rhetoric of his all the more absurd. He’s the posterboy for the techdirt music business model. He did it 40 years ago too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Mike, if someone didn’t like what you wrote (and there are quite a few that don’t) would you like it if someone took Techdirt down? If they kept attacking your site, would you ask the authorities to do something about it?

Have we reached a point where if we just don’t like what someone says, we just silence them? I find that thinking quite sad.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Mike, if someone didn’t like what you wrote (and there are quite a few that don’t) would you like it if someone took Techdirt down?

Not at all. That’s why I specifically and clearly stated I don’t agree with the process of taking down the site. I just think that Simmons making bizarre claims he can’t live up don’t help the situation.

Have we reached a point where if we just don’t like what someone says, we just silence them? I find that thinking quite sad.

Did I say that? No. I specifically said the DDoS attacks were dumb and a bad idea.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Jackass

I always thought that the jail argument was a stupid one. It’s a last, desperate threat of an asshole. He knows he can’t do anything, he’s just hoping to scare someone.

I think I’ve asked this before; Is there really a group on 4chan called Anonymous? From what I see, they’re not a group, but a bunch of people that happen to agree every now and then. No organization whatsoever, no official group. Granted, that may be the point.

Xander C (profile) says:

Re: Jackass

There’s no group, only Anonymous. It is what you make of it, but sites like the “chans” do offer shelter to those who do not wished to be named.

It’s a pen name that is open for the public to use, that is both transparent and opaque. Anonymous is what you make of it and out of it. The people who do not understand it will make it into devils, and those who do see the redeeming value behind it.

chris (profile) says:

Re: Jackass

I think I’ve asked this before; Is there really a group on 4chan called Anonymous? From what I see, they’re not a group, but a bunch of people that happen to agree every now and then.

the problem with leaderless or distributed movements of any kind is that they are easy to setup and therefore easy to fake. anonymous might be a real force, or it might be a flag for people to wave when they do something and want it to look more impressive than it really is.

it might also be a false-flag operation.

the same could be said about various islamic and white supremacist movements.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

It tends to be a lot harder to identify folks behind a DDoS attack than you might think.

Gene is almost certainly a technological idiot. He probably did talk to some people from the FBI who likely promised to “do whatever we can” to bring these people to justice, i.e., absolutely nothing.

Or maybe Gene will sue the innocent people who own the infected machines which were used as the basis of the attack.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Also, I’m curious why the FBI even cares, but we’ve seen the FBI kowtow to celebrities in the past,”

Well, doing a DDOS is against the law, no? Maybe that is why the FBI should care?

Being a jerk off isn’t against the law, doing a DDOS is. Having a web site taken down isn’t the same as calling someone a “whore” as in a previous article. Should Gene just turn the other cheek? Again, I doubt if Mike would appreciate someone taking down Techdirt. Would you as the authorities to do something about it?

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Again, I doubt if Mike would appreciate someone taking down Techdirt. Would you as the authorities to do something about it?”

I imagine the FBI would want Mike to first prove sufficient damages to warrant an investigation. Proving damages resulting from a DDoS attack on a blog would seem to be pretty much impossible. If it were me then I wouldn’t bother contacting them and instead spend the energy on technical measures to limit the effect of the attack.

I don’t think it would be any easier for Gene to prove damages in this instance and would bet that if the FBI did get involved, they would do so because of his celebrity status rather than following actual procedure. The fact that a DDoS is against the law doesn’t mean that the FBI should be wasting its resources on cases like this.

I happen to think that DDoS is a dumb thing to do and don’t agree with the usual justification that they are akin to real world peaceful protests. However, I also wouldn’t advocate spending resources on tracking down real world protesters that go too far if they haven’t done significant harm.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As there do exist ways to protect a site from the worst effects of DDoS attacks themselves and are frequently very inexpensive to implement I’m wondering if his tongueness is as cheap as he is loud.

Don’t you think, Mr would be lawyer, that it’s at least partly the responsibility of a site owner to protect themselves? Particularly is your name is Gene Simmons?

And yes, it’s a criminal offense but doesn’t the FBI have better things to do like track down kidnapped and missing children and a host of other things than to stroke Simmons overblown loudmouthed ego?

Now if the attack had compromised things like public health and safety, national security or something ACTUALLY important I’d say FBI have at ‘er.

As for Mike he’s smart enough to have taken precautions, I’m sure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Picture this. You have a web server, a single yet powerful machine.

On the other corner, you have Anonymous, with over 9000 machines.

You cannot win. No matter how powerful your computers and network are, by combining enough machines and networks the other side can always have enough firepower to take you down.

No matter how many computers and how much bandwidth you have, it is finite. Even with advanced firewalls, sheer volume can fill the pipes upstream of them.

Of course, if your programming is deficient, your web servers untuned, and your pipes anemic, a single bored teenager with a domestic connection will be able to take it down. But even the largest web sites can get overloaded with unusually high traffic and fall down.

Anonymous Coward says:

@44 then @49

mike has nohting to fear its simmons like mouth pieces that spew utter retard statements…

@49
now think 900000 or 9 million machines
now think about a single 4Kbyte packet per machine coming in.

one per varied time frame
say 1-30 seconds for ten minutes then a break for a hour per ip address

you go ahead and ban 9 million ips
there are 4.2 billion ips…..in 255^4
why are we really running out of ipv4 addies

go ask genes new friends the fbi
funny how the anti law rockin roller needs the feds now eh gene girl….

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: No, the FBI doesn't really care.

No. The FBI probably does not infact care here.

They probably gave him some lip service and proceeded to promptly ignore him.

In truth, this is a common thing. The cops quite often don’t give a d*mn about your problems. Unless it fits into a narrow set of criteria, they are going to just ignore you. They might be honest enough with you about this, or not.

This is why Big Content had to harras the Congress into forcing the FBI and the DOJ to pay attention to piracy.

The guys in the FBI are much more interested in things that will enhance their careers rather than some loser glam rocker from the 70s and his website.

Daemon_ZOGG (profile) says:

I think Gene Simmons and Richard Simmons are related...

It just reminds me of whenever Richard Simmons would get bent out of shape on The David Letterman Show. Ranting and raving. Although, I have’nt witnessed Gene running around like a little school girl, yet. But, it’s still early in the game, so you never know. ;P

Kiss – A musical band who’s time died a quarter centery ago.
Gene Simmons – Crabby.. OLD.. Fart. }:P

Michael says:

He doesn't get it

The thing is, there is no organisation called “anonymous” and it doesn’t matter if a few people get thrown in jail. The rest of the people that follow the movement don’t care what happens to the others… they are more likely to laugh about the fate of any that got busted than they are to give a damn. This guy just doesn’t get it. The more he draws attention to it, the worse it gets. Its really not about anything but the lulz for 98% of these guys, and the more reaction, the more lulz…

Free Capitalist (profile) says:

Considering Gene was popular in what, 1950?

Too early…

1982

Too late, LOL Geriatric Gene.

Anonymous is amorphous. Anonymous is also faced with the same philosophical/practical conundrum as true, idealist Libertarians. Many who hook up would like to do some good, but being largely anarchistic (civil or not) don’t truly give a rats ass about the system, and whomever does end up organizing activity often end up doing stupid shit.

Noel Coward says:

Anonymous Hypocrisy

Is it not interesting, that the so called protesters for free speech, as the first order of business, is to silence anyone they don’t like?

They despise the system which seeks order by censoring, yet they are HYPOCRITES of the first order, who use dis-order as the weapon of choice.

These are the actions naive children. Only problem is, that they’re not children! This collective only becomes what they despise, by using the same actions and methods that the system does, so are no better than they.

I have a right to question authority, but not so the NEW BIG Brother of the internet censorship called Anonymous.

Which is worse? As far as I can see, they’re just the same.
Both are faceless overbearing and throw their weight around.
One is organized and has rules, the other has none and is anarchy.

I know which one I prefer of the two.
How about you?

Honestly?

If you want protest, be a man about it, not some coward!
Hiding behind a mask is not being accountable, and not truly a protest by definition.

I’ll vote free speech, provided there is a caveat of responsibility attached to the terms.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...