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

it is unfortunate that the same open platform on the internet could not SOMEHOW be applied to television. i can only dream of one day abolishing the FCC...

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: [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... .

Ha ha ha..Published author?

Like you have ever had anything interesting to say...No talent

I see the mental institution let you out for a field trip and gave you a quarter to get on the internet. Enjoy your outing. Don't forget where they parked the short bus.

Popcorn Eater wrote: You don't have to read this whole post....summary, it is possible to have an opinion contrary to the law (SEE THIS THREAD), it does not make YOU wrong. Now if you don't follow that law, you may still not be wrong, but you may be a criminal. Oh and just because someone gets something published, esp in 2012, it does not mean there is anyting good said. See this post was just published.

Feel free to PM me with this int. work you are so quick to defend. I will not call you out by name, I am just really curious what is so valuable? I am absolutely sure I am not the only one here.

I cannot remember if you are conservative or liberal, so here are two examples. If you are liberal, and you want to get your kid a better education and since education is a tool that has worked well as an society investment, someone argued this recently, we could have a vote in the community and take a little more from everyone to get better schools (or a lot like we did in Park). Now a conservative might feel this is wrong, but the law allows it, so according to the way you (as a published author) use words....this actually is not wrong, because the law allows it, like your int. property rights I don't fully agree with...it is not only legal, but right.

Now lets say you are conservative and we again use your language. Today many conservatives feel that abortion is wrong, but the way you put it, it is not wrong because the laws, like the laws that give you intellectual rights, allow such killing of life if inside the mother. By law it is not wrong, if that is the way we define right and wrong (which you argued).

So to be clear, your rights to your intellectual property are supported by the same system that allows abortion and the broadscale redistribution of wealth, so if taking away intellectual rights is wrong because the law allows them, it would be equally as wrong to take away people rights to vote away their neighbor's income or their right to kill unborn human babbies. In your words, these things are not wrong. I would debate both of them.

Do we really want to talk about right and wrong in terms of the law, I thought here at 285bound, we were slightly above that, the visionaries trying to look past the laws or to the next ones. In fact if wrong is only derrived from the law, once SOPA passes, this entire thread will show just how wrong most people are.

I will say most people seem to be for an open internet, just because it is electrons, but would not allow the same infringement off the internet, just like for some reason, it is ok with just about everyone to have their e communications scanned and logged, but it feels so wrong to have the same thing happen if your communications are in print (us mail). Just like GOPtwin, we seem to be blindly following whateve the law says. I do not see the difference, but I think given the way laws are and to put this in GOPtwin speak, I am wrong. It is as critical for soceity that our E-communication be public as it was previously for our written ones to be private, otherwise why would it be so and why would we work to engrain this even deeper with more laws (beyond SOPA).

Did you see those new google ads trying to convince you why you need them to know everything about you....so you don't have to google your town name when you google a plumber so you don't get one accross the country.

I think privacy, or at least allowing companies to offer private options is more important than SOPA, today companies are required to keep data on you if you use them to use the internet, required.

how about 285boundbutbutter.com?

Your "summary" is a long and convoluted, full of logical fallacies that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and actually displays a lack of critical thinking skills. Your "summary" would be fun if you were trying to connect UFO's with Bigfoot or some other silly little quack theory. But this topic is about existing laws, possible new laws and intellectual property. It's not about education, it's not about abortion, it's not about conservatives or liberal (there seems to be a comfortable bipartisan support against SPOA), the US mail, Google ads or redistribution of wealth. Your metaphors and analogies are all over the place and have no bearing on the subject at hand. You're having problems focusing.

It really simple Popcorn... you say... "Just like GOPtwin, we seem to be blindly following whatever the law says." You damn well better follow the laws when it comes to intellectual property rights. I've dealt with this topic over and over, and in my opinion, you are part of the problem. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you would have no problem downloading an music album or a movie from a torrent site or from some other illegal source? Be "honest" with me. I say this because your rambling discourse sound so familiar to me, much like the arguments I've heard over and over about why someone should be able to steal intellectual property and why there is nothing wrong with doing that.

Why don't you tell me where you sit, instead of where you stand... before you type another long meandering logic-lacking diatribe. Are you alright with downloading, using, distributing and owning intellectual property without having paid the proper cost for the material?

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).

Intellectual property ought to remain with the author. Not everyone is creative enough or persistent enough to author intellectual property. Similarly, not every author is knowledgeable enough on how to market their product. That was true BI (before Internet) and a publisher would market and sell books, or other intellectual property generally convincing first time authors that they (publisher) needed to own the copyright. I did that. After toiling more than a few years on researching and documenting Belize dive sites, I granted my publisher the copyright. They made money and I was left with less than a 4 percent return on my investment plus was barred from doing anything with my original material without their consent. Intellectual property is just as valuable as physical property and the author ought to have the right for a reasonable return on his investment. I've not published any other books in part because a publisher and I could not agree on a reasonable return on investment. Let's put this in perspective. One of the last two week dive trips to Belize cost me $20,000 for an update on the Dive guide. My gross return on my dive book is less than this one trip. Meanwhile the publisher grossed in excess of $100000. Today's internet enables two bit authors like myself to actually recoup their investment and maybe make a little money as well. but only if there is some protection for intellectual material aimed for making money.

This differs entirely from intellectual property I publish as a scientist. With that I'm good with a reference to an article. That is how the scientific community has worked forever and I see no need for change here. Besides, there is little of the rip off you see elsewhere, where someone aims to profit from your work at your expense.

Perhaps it is good to consider what the internet would be like if authors of intellectual propery were to black out their contributions which many feel is their right to take?

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

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).

Intellectual property ought to remain with the author. Not everyone is creative enough or persistent enough to author intellectual property. Similarly, not every author is knowledgeable enough on how to market their product. That was true BI (before Internet) and a publisher would market and sell books, or other intellectual property generally convincing first time authors that they (publisher) needed to own the copyright. I did that. After toiling more than a few years on researching and documenting Belize dive sites, I granted my publisher the copyright. They made money and I was left with less than a 4 percent return on my investment plus was barred from doing anything with my original material without their consent. Intellectual property is just as valuable as physical property and the author ought to have the right for a reasonable return on his investment. I've not published any other books in part because a publisher and I could not agree on a reasonable return on investment. Let's put this in perspective. One of the last two week dive trips to Belize cost me $20,000 for an update on the Dive guide. My gross return on my dive book is less than this one trip. Meanwhile the publisher grossed in excess of $100000. Today's internet enables two bit authors like myself to actually recoup their investment and maybe make a little money as well. but only if there is some protection for intellectual material aimed for making money.

This differs entirely from intellectual property I publish as a scientist. With that I'm good with a reference to an article. That is how the scientific community has worked forever and I see no need for change here. Besides, there is little of the rip off you see elsewhere, where someone aims to profit from your work at your expense.

Perhaps it is good to consider what the internet would be like if authors of intellectual propery were to black out their contributions which many feel is their right to take?

I've had multiple discussions with folks who see absolutely nothing wrong with sharing intellectual property illegally. And when I speak to them about it, I come across the same mentality that the Occupy people have; it's a total entitlement mindset, everything should belong to everyone else and why should I make any money from material I have created.

I challenge anyone to tell me why something I have create, invested my time and money into the birth of that material, why they should have access to it free of charge, and should have the ability to pass my material on to anyone who would like to have it.

Let me get this straight, you are great, everthing you say is right and when other people try to explain things....you tell them they are relating things willy nilly like big foot...and then wrap up all major debates with...ahh he is just like the occupy wall street folks. Me thinks OWS is your bigfoot, pull it out of your mouth and get off it.

There is this guy that also posts here that is able to express an alternative viewpoint or try to bring someone over to their side without being so insulting. His name is RocDoc. We all have different tones, and I know I have insulted, but you certainly take insulting people to a new level in order to make your point. I would think a real writer would not have to stoop to this level, that he could use the tools he knows so well, words, to have an even stronger effect. Kind of like a boxer that wins a match by kicking someone in the balls. It's ok your response can be all about that last statement, rip it apart, use it to show why I am less than.

I answered your question about - am I ok with downloading etc. - but I will repeat it with some detail, I am ok with it, I don't do it, I would not turn in someone who did it unless they made a law about that and then I would have to weigh the consequences to both me and the person I was turning in....and perhaps even the writer.

I love it, when the laws help people they like the laws and support them and when they don't the laws now mean nothing. This law means a bunch to you so you support it and argue for it, insult for it. But I have read a number of times on here about laws you don't like. We can relate laws and the processes we use to pass them and the logic process....at least some of us can. (wow you make me want to stoop to your level).

It's all good. I am not copying your work and something tells me that I would not find it of much value, but if I could read it I might disagree with my last statement....and I would be the first to admit it.

And once you clean the spit off that big foot, I have some more suggestions. And get over OWS, it has come and I think at this point has gone. Don't worry, you can keep all your liberal, made up intellectual property rights, I am not trying to actually take them away, just talk about them.

We would all like to download our favorite songs for free or download that application that allows our computer to do things we yearn for without paying for it. Personally, I would love to download star war si fi e-books for free. Bur, I know sSmeone toiled to produce those products more often than not with an eye toward earning a living. If no one pays for this kind of intellectual property, the author starves while those who felt justified to download their work, enjoys the fruits of their labor. It's no different than if you grew a vegetable garden with an eye toward reducing your grocery bill, or to simply sustain yourself, but we decided that it is perfectly justifiable for us to go in there and pick you r crops without compensation to you. Not only did you toil for months to get your garden to grow, but in addition to your investment of time, you had an investment of seeds, fertilizer, soil, water, etc. You get nothing in return for your efforts and that is not right no matter what conditions exist. Just because it exists in digital format does not change ownership right and the right to ear a living from intellectual property.

And right on !, this

Hacking group Anonymous said Thursday it knocked out the websites of the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, and several entertainment industry sites as retribution for anti-piracy efforts by both the government and the entertainment industry. The group said it was "the largest attack ever," with 5,635 participants involved in bringing down the sites.

Hacking group Anonymous said Thursday it knocked out the websites of the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, and several entertainment industry sites as retribution for anti-piracy efforts by both the government and the entertainment industry. The group said it was "the largest attack ever," with 5,635 participants involved in bringing down the sites.

Apparently Hacking group Anonymous feels that it is perfectly reasonable to go into your garden and help themselves without giving you any compensation. That is quite the mindset.

Apparently the pending legislation potentially threatens internet access in addition to intellectual property piracy. I do not support restriction to internet access. I am for copyright protection. I've lived in places where you can buy thousands of dollars worth of pirated software for a few hundred dollars. This is what the copyright protection needs to guard against or eliminate.

So what is the position people here take on the push by the entertainment industry to protect intellectual property on the internet?

Popcorn Eater wrote:
[snip]

I answered your question about - am I OK with downloading etc. - but I will repeat it with some detail, I am ok with it, I don't do it, I would not turn in someone who did it unless they made a law about that[/i] and then I would have to weigh the consequences to both me and the person I was turning in....and perhaps even the writer.

[snip]

I don't care if you like my tone, I'm not trying to win a personality contest here. There are already laws, it's call copyrights, patents, design patents, contracts, options... and these existing laws cover...

Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs.

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

And you continue to make my point about the Occupy movement mentality, by displaying the exact same mentality. And what sort of convoluted logic is this... "I love it, when the laws help people they like the laws and support them and when they don't the laws now mean nothing." It has NOTHING to do with whether you like the intellectual property laws or someone else doesn't like them. The force of a Law does not become diminished or eliminated just because someone doesn't agree with it. That's usually called anarchy.

And your relative morality (" I would have to weigh the consequences") holds no weight with the law. Now I know where where you "sit". It's the first honest thing you have said. I got it... you're statement... "I'm OK with downloading" tells me everything I need to know. And I don't give two sh*tes if you "don't do it". You've stated you position and no amount of convoluted-lacking-critical-thing-skills-illogical-sophomoric-rants will change the fact that you support the stealing and misuse of intellectual property. It took you 4 or 5 rambling comments with little content to simply admit that. Guess what Popcorn? You and your friends are not entitled to something that doesn't belong to you... period... it's as simple as that.

And I agree with you on one point. Rockdoc is very good at expressing "an alternative viewpoint or try to bring someone over to their side without being so insulting". Guess what... I don't want someone on my side who has no problem with stealing. If you want to possibly get a moral compass, speak to your parents, your minister or your psychologist.

P.S. And I suspect you're right about the stuff I have published. As you say... "something tells me that I would not find it of much value". No you wouldn't. My works have dealt with good and evil, mans inhumanity to man, moral issues in the medical community and historical tragedies. Tragically... I don't think my material would teach you anything about right and wrong.