Should 285Bound.com join the Internet Blackout on 1/18/12?

The SOPA legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives aims to crack down on online sales of pirated American movies, music or other goods by forcing Internet companies to block access to foreign sites offering material that violates U.S. copyright laws. Supporters argue the bill is unlikely to have an impact on U.S.-based websites.

U.S. advertising networks could also be required to stop online ads, and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites found to be distributing pirated goods.

Google has repeatedly said the bill goes too far and could hurt investment. Along with other Internet companies such as Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter and eBay, it has run advertisements in major newspapers urging Washington lawmakers to rethink their approach.

White House officials raised concerns on Saturday about SOPA saying they believe it could make businesses on the Internet vulnerable to litigation and harm legal activity and free speech.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... OM20120116

Obviously, we can't because of emergency information but I thought it was an interesting question.

CinnamonGirl wrote: Obviously, we can't because of emergency information but I thought it was an interesting question.

It's a good question. I really think the most effective sort of blackouts would be by those sites which can interrupt business, commerce and research. I use the internet daily for research and information that I use in my career(s)... I have a daily need, a financial need to have access to Google, Wikipedia, certain technical sights. But then again, small sites like 285 Bound, if then blackout, with some sort of splash screen that explains the issue, that could bring the issue to the fore of many people who are unaware of the situation. So there could be multiple reasons for all kinds of sites going alone with the blackout.

But like you say, 285 Bound is also an extension of the emergency public service agencies, and I certainly look to 285 Bound (and some other local community based sites) for all sorts of information related to weather, road conditions, fire conditions, closures etc.

I say let the large commercial sites make the point where the point can do the most "damage". It would be the best use of the blackout idea.

I like an open society and would argue against intellectual property rights in many cases, but does 285bound condone the violation of copywright laws?

Also if investment is the issue. there are truckloads of laws that limit investment and kill jobs left and right.....they just aren't laws on google.

I personally would be fine with an open internet and perhaps only requiring credit for previously published works.

Think of how many people would invest in my book and software copying firm if they were allowed to and I was allowed to run it. I would sell everything published for 50 cents on the dollar, but your stupid laws stop this investment and growth....or rather keep it in the hands of the copywright holders and their keepers.

Touchy, just like the internet made it so we no longer feel mail (internet mail) should be private (and people that would claim to be conservative even argue why this is ok), does the internet now mean that intellectual property rights have changed? Anhyone on 285bound own any intellectaul property rights they would be ok with giving up?

Would 285bound be ok if I started 285boundbutbetter? or 285boundx and used the same format, colors, buttons and even imported all of the posts made to date (and updated it with new posts daily)? if so, then go ahead and support the blackout. ....or even more to the point, what if I just use 285bound.com and simply find a way to ebb this site off. This site is owned and the way people find it and those associated with it benefit is through the use of this specific address. I could take it another step and I could profit off an internet group of sites where I end all of them with the word "bound" this is a good idea, I will start them all over the region and then the nation all ending in "bound" (what a cool word). Then I can use google translate to translate "bound" to other languages and go worldwide. Would 285bound be cool with this? (this is a real question for the company).

Don't you help support this organization or run it? I would really appreciate the perspective of those that do...or perhaps I will just reread the terms of service and see if they allow me to copy and profit off of what was created here.

Not picking a fight, just trying to further the convo, I don't know where I want to draw the line. If a poor student photocopies a textbook in the library, if I do my 285bound copy scheme or if I post a youtube video that has a new movie clip I just copied. Perhaps we should not own ideas and images, just like we have laws against owning people....do we really need another nonviolent crime taking people's weath and freedom? Or is it wealth and freedom they did not own or have a right to in the first place. I say perhaps we should only own physical things, pets and livestock. This could help to take the value out of things that don't exist that we predend do (like money only listed on paper or a computer).

I think that the problem is the proposed legislation. There are legal remedies for copyright infringement (285boundbutbetter.com) the problem is how and who is going to start shutting down websites. Believe me that can be a huge issue if they don't do it right. I think this is a behind the scenes big money problem with corporations. There are already cyber squatting laws and copyright and TM laws. Getting congress in the middle of all this is my issue.

As a website, we do have issues we have to watch. This is why we have a fair use policy and watch personal info on the site. But getting congress involved is going to be a disaster. And as far as Youtube yeah we already had 7 news take a piece from our youtube channel earlier this year without attribution and it was legal because of youtube's TOS. So, let the market figure this out themselves. We now will be putting our logo or something at the bottom of our videos so that if someone uses it they will know where it comes from.

This kind of stupid regulation from a congress that is most likely being paid by companies and have an agenda is not the way to fix this problem.

Just FYI, I asked the question. I never said whether I think we should or not. I would rather hear what you think. It isn't going to happen on 285bound.

I liked your questions Popcorn Eater.

I agree, the Federal Government should so not be involved in regulating this, as I believe it would really muck things up. However, I do believe that some kind of regulations should be put into effect and there should be some monitoring of the internet.

As usual, with the government, no thought was given at the beginning of the internet evolution as to rules and regulations and who should be the internet police, and now that several years have passed, problems are cropping up and the powers-that-be are scrambling to come up with something to "fix it".

I'd like to see some pro-activity versus the re-activity we are currently seeing.

Popcorn Eater wrote: I like an open society and would argue against intellectual property rights in many cases, but does 285bound condone the violation of copywright laws?

Also if investment is the issue. there are truckloads of laws that limit investment and kill jobs left and right.....they just aren't laws on google.

I personally would be fine with an open internet and perhaps only requiring credit for previously published works.

Think of how many people would invest in my book and software copying firm if they were allowed to and I was allowed to run it. I would sell everything published for 50 cents on the dollar, but your stupid laws stop this investment and growth....or rather keep it in the hands of the copywright holders and their keepers.

Touchy, just like the internet made it so we no longer feel mail (internet mail) should be private (and people that would claim to be conservative even argue why this is ok), does the internet now mean that intellectual property rights have changed? Anhyone on 285bound own any intellectaul property rights they would be ok with giving up?

Would 285bound be ok if I started 285boundbutbetter? or 285boundx and used the same format, colors, buttons and even imported all of the posts made to date (and updated it with new posts daily)? if so, then go ahead and support the blackout. ....or even more to the point, what if I just use 285bound.com and simply find a way to ebb this site off. This site is owned and the way people find it and those associated with it benefit is through the use of this specific address. I could take it another step and I could profit off an internet group of sites where I end all of them with the word "bound" this is a good idea, I will start them all over the region and then the nation all ending in "bound" (what a cool word). Then I can use google translate to translate "bound" to other languages and go worldwide. Would 285bound be cool with this? (this is a real question for the company).

Don't you help support this organization or run it? I would really appreciate the perspective of those that do...or perhaps I will just reread the terms of service and see if they allow me to copy and profit off of what was created here.

Not picking a fight, just trying to further the convo, I don't know where I want to draw the line. If a poor student photocopies a textbook in the library, if I do my 285bound copy scheme or if I post a youtube video that has a new movie clip I just copied. Perhaps we should not own ideas and images, just like we have laws against owning people....do we really need another nonviolent crime taking people's weath and freedom? Or is it wealth and freedom they did not own or have a right to in the first place. I say perhaps we should only own physical things, pets and livestock. This could help to take the value out of things that don't exist that we predend do (like money only listed on paper or a computer).

That's easy for you to say... I suspect you have never created anything that could be considered intellectual property. I'm a published author... on an international scale. Every one of my works have time, money and sweat equity behind the development of the piece. No different if you built a deck on your house, or added a room. It's your time, money and sweat equity that created that item that previously did not exist. Most intellectual property doesn't just appear from the ether, free of constraints... no more than that deck or added room on your house.

So... I'll ask you... would you like it if I saw your new deck on your house, and showed up with a construction crew and dismantled that deck so I could have it for my house... Just because I wanted it? How about if I tramped around your home and grabbed a few of those wonderful electronic toys you have, because I don't have them and I want them. Would that be alright with you? Private Message me your address... I'll be glad to help you with your "open society" concept.

Perhaps you would like to leave your house and that new deck and added room to your family when you die. Perhaps you would like to pass on some of those electronic toys and other personal acquisitions to some of your relatives, grandchildren or just friends. Well, I would like to be able to pass on the rights to my published works and all the royalties and other financial spin-offs that may result from my the time, money and sweat equity I spent creating that work. My family has a claim on my personal worth. It was family money, family time, family support that helped enable me to create these works. My published writings were not created in a vacuum.

You say you have arguments against intellectual property rights. No you don't. You are trying to ignore over 400 years of the legal and the social history of intellectual property rights. In one wave of your magic entitlement wand, you think that you can swish away the legal and proper ownership of created material. You're fantasy is not much different from the Occupy people who want free access to everything, cancelation of school debt, the forgiveness of financial obligations, free this, free that. Sorry... it doesn't work that way. I didn't create what I have created just so anyone on a whim decides they want to benefit, free of obligation and free of charge, what I spent years to create. You're thinking is the height of totalitarian ideology. You not only want my physical goods, my labor and my money... you want what's in my mind.

No way.

GOP twin,

wrong as usual. I am just able to look outside of myself and my own world. This is why in one post I am called the liberal and the other I am the heartless conservative.

I own too much in terms of materials rights, real estate, businesses, loans, obligations, livestock, intellectual rights, brands. For the most part, if you have not noticed though, I am about the free flow of information. I am ok with being wrong, admitting it and learning. My opinions cannot be wrong though they can change. My opinion today (and you are helping) is that things that dont actually exist as a unique items in space cannot be owned. It is illegal to own a person, but it is more possible/tangable than owning an idea, a song (not the cd itself) or a book. It is more easily enforcable and explainable to any cuture now or previously on the planet in any language.

I would not like it if you took my deck. But lets say that I made my deck and then made 1000 more in my lawn and then sold them (like your book....or mine and yes I do spell check stuff that goes to print)....and then someone took that deck apart and saw how I put it together....say my little nailhead hiding trick and the way I arranged the grain on the wood to minimize the swelling with exposure to different conditions and then that I used ceramic screws, which clearly will make the deck live longer, don't forget the species of wood....and then went out and started to build decks just like mine, even started a company called "Get Decked" where the exact same size deck is built on house after house, same matls, same dims the whole deal. Now the example would be paralell and it happens all the time, it has happened to me and it happend with decks. Tough crap. It was an idea and I am still building decks for people at good prices. Hey now even more people want decks, because decks are more the norm, esp the size and type I build. (see music propigation)

The book and the deck and the way to feed more with less is very different, it is an idea, a concept, a representation and if it was not different, you would not loose your rights over time, you would be able to pass them on to your heirs, like I plan to with my deck. But alas you cannot, and if you want to keep your book yours, the method in reality is to not publish it and keep it inside your very real house, which you can own, but not really, you are just leasing that from your local govt. This will become obvious if you stop paying the rent. So there are things, there are concepts and there are the silly words to describe them. If you want to say you own a book, you mean you wrote it, I assume your are talking about the book and others on your shelf.

I don't have all the answers, though I try. This will always be a subject of opinion, because it is an idea, or a statement or a collection of them you are trying to protect. The internet has taught us this, though I bring it up often, it has even changed things. Here is a book, What Would Google Do, if you read it, you may have been convinced or open to the concept that you can restrict the flow of info or ideas, but it might not benefit you financially it is 2012, more than monks can reproduce books, the cat is out of the bag and I guess in this case it only the law and its enforcers that can protect these things you own. Seems so much different than most other things you can protect with a gun at your doorstep, as it so often mentioned or referred to around here, seems so disempowering if you can't even consider protecting your rights without police.

Ah, just ignore me. These are all just opinions. I am the guy that won't violate your int. rights, can't really hold it against someone who violates mine. In either case I try to treat you and in the end judge you by your morals. I said try.

And all I have to do to get what is in your mind is know the name of your book. Feel free to PM me, I would be glad to read it, I will pay retail and will not copy it.

NO, why should 285bound be part of the sheep, 285bound is different keep it that way!

Also GOP twin,

Besides my opinion on intellectual rights, I did not say anyting about cancelling debts or free this or that or wanting your property or labor. I nver argue for more taxes, though you have if it benefits your or what you think is good. I have never asked for your real goods or any portion there of, but you have told me how you deserve mine because the effect on society was proven or something like that. You are grouping me with others that you would envision share my ideals.

I am the guy that was having discussions and arguements with the OWS. But keep on playing your two sided game, both sides are going to loose anyway.

Just please keep remembering that there are two or more ways to discuss things.

There is discussing what you personally believe and there is the consistancy arguement. Those that only see things two ways often don't notice when someone is using the consistancy arguement. This might be the case when the conservative argues back a liberal point to another conservative to point out that conservative #1 is actaully quite liberal but actaully just labels it different. Conservative #1, this is you btw, just takes that as, this guys is liberal, not even realizing he was being called out as a liberal himself. I notice he often jumps up and tries to take Conservative #2 (this is lots of people, or people some days) and tries to call them liberal because of his own poor recolections and associations. Perhaps mine are off as well. But I pay my debts, I pay my way, I also pay for some of yours.

You bring up 400 yrs of intellectual rights, which do expire, and I brought up a the timeless and cultural crossing concept of ownership. Tell you what, tell me how you would explain to a tribal community how such things work. Or perhaps when all hell breaks loose and you band up with your family and a few others to survive, you can explain it to others in your new group. But I guess at that point, you would also be sharing real property, so never mind. I will put forth that your concept of intellectual rights is not timeless but very much a product of a large society, which we do live it, and thus I still debate it in my own mind as with other society/personal line issues (like public school funding).

When I take two steps back, restricting the flow of ideas, words and art does not sound like the brand of a good society, sounds like something communists and hitler did, but maybe you are saying they just did not do it right, it needed to happen in this other way with these other people restricting the use of ideas once they are already out in public. In the free market, would you not be obliged to defend your books reproduction and ideas without governement interference. While property rights seem rather conservative to me, intellectual rights are starting to feel quite liberal.

Would you stop people from reselling your books if you could, and if so why? This is excepted....and I think I know why, because it is a real thing and once you own it you own it under the terms of the sale. The first sale you had control of, but did you put any contractual restrictions on subsequent sales. In other words you could write a great book, sell 1000 coppies to me, I keep them. You make little money on your book as does your family, but something happens and you become famous after death and my originals are worth a fortune, I make a killing off of you and your family makes piddly. This would all be legal and by design.

Just my opinion, feel free to reproduce this.