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

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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 can't be wrong. It's my opinion. :Whistle

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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.

And I don't think I ever mentioned being against the free flow of information. But when that flow becomes a electronic (or otherwise) COMPLETE copy of my work, distributed (whether for profit or free use), or used in full as a public presentation, without my permission, or without my publishers permission, then that is not the free flow of information, that a crime.

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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.

Wrong as usual. An idea can be owned. Some of my material is adapted from existing material. I come up with an idea to take that original work and adapt it to another medium. Such as when an existing book is adapted to a screenplay (I never said I have published books by the way. I work in a different medium then novels). I present this idea to the original author, I lay out my premise, how I'm going to adapt his or her material, what characters I'm going to drop, how I am going to tweak the plots, making that work more presentable in the new medium. These ideas are accepted by the original author. And then I purchase an option to adapt that work. That costs me money most of the time (unless the author offers me the option for free, which has happened). At that point, I have a contract for an idea, a contract with the authors publisher, literary agent and any others who may have an interest in that work. The option is for a fixed period of time, I must complete my project with in that period of time. At that point, my idea is owned, by a number of people and interests.

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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)

Anyone can take one of my works apart and try to do a better job with the idea, using his own ideas on how my story should be presented, after it's published. If my material is based on another authors work, that person cannot realize his idea unless he purchases an option to develop his idea. If he wants to take one of my original works that I create from my own mind, totally fiction, then he must purchase the option from me. If my totally original work is based on some aspect of history, an historical figure, then he is free to create his own version of the story.

And there are laws and courts who will decide if this other author has illegally developed his work. If I have created a piece based on an historical event and/or characters, then quotes by these characters are usually public domain. I cannot claim another author stole my work just because he/she has duplicated quotes or sayings attribute to the historical person. But it I find word for word portions of his/her work that mimic my material, then I may have a legal remedy to that situation.

There is a big difference from someone learning how to build a deck, even if they are using some of your skillful techniques, to someone who doesn't go through the proper channels to develop his ideas. And even then, using your deck example, you could actually patent a design concept, or a material patent for some new styled metal joint or fastener and anyone using your design or material object verbatim, without your permission, is libel to a legal action.

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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.

As I detailed above, you can legally OWN an idea. What you are doing in the above paragraph is giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt, giving him a pass, claiming it's my fault if I publish, claiming I am assisting the criminal to steal my work or my idea. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. That's where I see you're Occupy styled entitlement mentality come into the debate... and I find that thinking totally flawed.

Popcorn Eater wrote: 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.

I'm not ignoring you, I just don't agree with your premises. Big difference. I have an idea...

Google will protest SOPA using popular home page

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57360 ... home-page/

Congratulations!
285boundbutbetter.com is available

CinnamonGirl wrote: Google will protest SOPA using popular home page

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57360 ... home-page/

Just for the record... and to address the actual topic of this thread (which I admit, I got off topic because of Popcorn's rambling questions)... I'm against these two bills. Yes, as evident above, I'm for strict protections of intellectual property... but these bills go to far, are too open ended and will effect fair use (which I have no problem with, even fair use of my own written material).

As someone who works in tech, SOPA and its evil twin PIPA need to die a swift death. Internet technologies are a bright spot in our economy. Don't kill the golden goose that is pooping out golden eggs.

[url=http://www.wikipedia.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.wikipedia.org[/url]

As one of my friends always says, "No legislation is better than poor legislation"

But,...

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

Well, then my question is why hasn't it been done?

The music business in particular, has been hammered by the rampant piracy. Musicians have had their property stolen to the tune of billions of dollars and the industry has changed forever. There needs to be some mechanism in place to eliminate sites like pirate bay and other torrent sites which are nothing more than criminals when it comes to music and software. It is stealing, pure and simple, and it's shocking how many people have no problem with it.

A little break from my usual snark and sarcasm.

Go to Wiki, go to Google, go to Reddit (yes... even you leftists) and sign one of the petitions or use one of the forms to let your congress-critter know that this is a bad bill. I'm someone who has intellectual property exposed to possible misuse because of the internet, and as much as I would like to have better controls on misuse of my property, I cannot go along with what I have read in this bill. This bill goes too far and can be misused, which will effect all honest users of the internet.

Let them know... NO!

OmniScience wrote: As one of my friends always says, "No legislation is better than poor legislation"

But,...

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

Well, then my question is why hasn't it been done?

The music business in particular, has been hammered by the rampant piracy. Musicians have had their property stolen to the tune of billions of dollars and the industry has changed forever. There needs to be some mechanism in place to eliminate sites like pirate bay and other torrent sites which are nothing more than criminals when it comes to music and software. It is stealing, pure and simple, and it's shocking how many people have no problem with it.

Agreed. But have you read this bill? Have you read some of the very open-ended language in this bill? There are too many ways the Federal government can use this bill to shut down and take control of all sorts of websites that are not directly associated with any illegal activity. The way this bill is constructed, if you placed a link on 285 Bound to a song on a pirate website... 285 Bound could be shut down. The internet is a unique communication platform that can't be regulated like it was a brick and mortar store... this bill treats the internet like it was a large syndicate, and anyone even involuntarily aiding that syndicate would be subject to prosecution.

Read the bill or at least some of the more detailed articles available on this topic.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

OmniScience wrote: As one of my friends always says, "No legislation is better than poor legislation"

But,...

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

Well, then my question is why hasn't it been done?

The music business in particular, has been hammered by the rampant piracy. Musicians have had their property stolen to the tune of billions of dollars and the industry has changed forever. There needs to be some mechanism in place to eliminate sites like pirate bay and other torrent sites which are nothing more than criminals when it comes to music and software. It is stealing, pure and simple, and it's shocking how many people have no problem with it.

Agreed. But have you read this bill? Have you read some of the very open-ended language in this bill? There are too many ways the Federal government can use this bill to shut down and take control of all sorts of websites that are not directly associated with any illegal activity. The way this bill is constructed, if you placed a link on 285 Bound to a song on a pirate website... 285 Bound could be shut down. The internet is a unique communication platform that can't be regulated like it was a brick and mortar store... this bill treats the internet like it was a large syndicate, and anyone even involuntarily aiding that syndicate would be subject to prosecution.

Read the bill or at least some of the more detailed articles available on this topic.

I've only read a small portion - not the entire 70+ pages, which is why I will not make specific comments on the bill itself.

I don't want any , "we need to pass it to find out what's in it" garbage, or more unbridled government control.
However, if the great minds at Google maintain that there are "smart, targeted ways" to address the issues, they should lead the way in developing and implementing such actions.