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

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

My position is as I have stated already- laws are already on the books to address this issue. The music companies are taking the easy way out- pay off the politicians for these new regulations at the expense of our free internet.

Technology already has come up with solutions to this issue as well- such as CD's and DVD's that can not be copied. Other technology exists to protect piracy- and the entertainmant companies just don't like the price tag.

Anyone caught downloading or stealing copyright material can be prosecuted - the laws are very serious and many people have been sent to jail and or ordered to repay. Of course this only applies to the USA- they don't give a damn about our laws in abu dhabi or India or China.

So all this new law will do is add more regulations to every one of us in America- even though many of us have never downloaded a copyright material - while the rest of the world continues to steal without affect.

The answer here is technology- not government regulations.

Those with material to protect should not be posting that material where it can be stolen so easily- and without any technology to protect it either.

You wouldn't leave you're wallet full of money laying on the sidewalk in front of you're house would you? Well that's exactly what many of these companies are doing- they make no effort to protect the property and then want to enact draconian laws instead of coming up with a real solution.

These regulations could really impact web sites like craigslist and 295bound- they could be shut down even with an innocent mistake.

More government is not the answer here- someone who steals copyright material will not be discouraged by more laws because they already are ignoring laws to steal. The big impact here will be on the rest of us who are doing nothing wrong!

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

It is an over-reach; it is going after a flea with a sledgehammer. It is one thing to file a lawsuit against someone who is stealing; prove it; fine them, and if the violation is bad enough, put them out of business. It is something else again to expect ISP's and service-providers to do your policiing for you; shut down websites; knock out and disable DNS's, without a trial and on the basis of nothing more than a minor violation or accusation.

If they want to fight the problem, they need to find a better way to do it. This all comes back to media companies and their lawyers still trying to fight 21st century battles and technology with 20th century business models. The genie is already out of the bottle--just like it was with Napster. They are not going to put the genie back in the bottle with this kind of ham-fisted approach.

Even now, libraries are able to allow people to "checkout" eBooks by downloading them on to their Kindles & iPads, etc. But the library is forced by the publisher to "buy" a certain number of "copies" at full retail price. So, to save money, the library only purchases 5-10 eCopies...You go to check it out, and if the max-number is already checked out, tough...You go on the waiting list. Publishers can only think in the same 20th century business model. What if, instead of forcing them to buy a fixed number of eCopies, they made it unlimited, but at a reduced-priced? What if 30 people read the 5 eCopies over 3 months, but have to wait in line? The publisher has sold 5 @ $10; they won't make more than $50. What if 30 people download a copy of the $10 book but for each downloaded copy, the library pays $1.75, or $2.00 or $2.50/copy... The publisher makes $52.50, or $60, or $75; and if more people download it than 30, they make an additional $1.75-$2.50 per copy. When the book falls out of favor, it may not be a revenue generator for awhile, but someone is bound to download it again, and the license is still open. Which way brings in more revenue for the publisher? It's stupid, and it's an obsolete business model.

Record companies fought for years to force people to have to buy a whole CD for $12.50 - $17-18, to get the one or two songs that they liked. That way they could recoup the cost of producing the other 8 or 9 pieces of garbage on an album/CD that were "throw-away" filler-cuts. When people started to demand that they be allowed to download ONLY the songs they wanted, the record companies went crazy. After awhile, they realized it was going to happen anyway. Either bands started creating better content so that people would want ALL of the cuts; or the companies started offering a discount-price for downloading the whole album/CD that was cheaper than buying the songs individually... ergo, you get iTunes/Amazon-Downloads/etc.

It's going to ultimately be the same for movies, TV, other commercial content. Either you find a way to collect a REASONABLE price that people are willing to pay...and make it EASIER for them to do so...or they are going to find a way around you until you do.

Duh....

It's dead Jim...

Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an early co-sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), delivered a statement Thursday evening on Facebook renouncing her support of the bill in its current form. …

“It’s clear that online piracy legislation in its current form is not workable,” said Blackburn. “It’s time to scrap the bill and start over. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find the best possible solution to ensure the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of our nation’s innovators are protected.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will postpone a cloture vote on a controversial bill to crack down on foreign websites that use pirated content. His move comes after a public campaign by websites concerned the bill would expose them to lawsuits turned once bipartisan support for the measure to strong opposition in both parties.

“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act,” Reid said in a statement. …

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/20/r ... s-on-pipa/

Now let's see what they come up with next and how they try to hide the controversial parts as riders to other bills.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

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

My position is as I have stated already- laws are already on the books to address this issue. The music companies are taking the easy way out- pay off the politicians for these new regulations at the expense of our free internet.

Technology already has come up with solutions to this issue as well- such as CD's and DVD's that can not be copied. Other technology exists to protect piracy- and the entertainmant companies just don't like the price tag.

Anyone caught downloading or stealing copyright material can be prosecuted - the laws are very serious and many people have been sent to jail and or ordered to repay. Of course this only applies to the USA- they don't give a damn about our laws in abu dhabi or India or China.

So all this new law will do is add more regulations to every one of us in America- even though many of us have never downloaded a copyright material - while the rest of the world continues to steal without affect.

The answer here is technology- not government regulations.

Those with material to protect should not be posting that material where it can be stolen so easily- and without any technology to protect it either.

You wouldn't leave you're wallet full of money laying on the sidewalk in front of you're house would you? Well that's exactly what many of these companies are doing- they make no effort to protect the property and then want to enact draconian laws instead of coming up with a real solution.

These regulations could really impact web sites like craigslist and 295bound- they could be shut down even with an innocent mistake.

More government is not the answer here- someone who steals copyright material will not be discouraged by more laws because they already are ignoring laws to steal. The big impact here will be on the rest of us who are doing nothing wrong!

From the way you present the intellectual property piracy issue, it makes it seem that authors (read companies) are posting their material unprotected and that is why it gets stolen. My experience is that is not the case (but I admit that I'm far from an expert on this matter). What I do know about is that pirated material is commonly purchased legally, the anti theft programs broken and then the intellectual property is copied and redistributed by the thief or thief organization. Let's face it. Copying and redistributing digital material is a whole lot easier than hard copy material. Generally speaking, piracy of intellectual property, movies, application software, music, etc. is not so much a US issue as it is an international issue. All of our existing laws have little impact outside of the US. The challenge thus is technology as you point out, a technology that is unbreakable. As expected that comes with a price and must be in place on all intellectual property.

That is all fine and good for the big boys. What about the individual entrepreneur who can not afford to pay for anti piracy software?

I can see both sides on this issue, but I actually agree with LJ here, (Gasp!). It is a different world. Musicians will have to start making their money from concerts.
And movie studios will have to improve the theatre experience enough to get people from behind their monitors and out of their basements.

FredHayek wrote: I can see both sides on this issue, but I actually agree with LJ here, (Gasp!). It is a different world. Musicians will have to start making their money from concerts. And movie studios will have to improve the theatre experience enough to get people from behind their monitors and out of their basements.

You see what side of what issue? There are two issue here, and you didn't address a single one of them. The issue is should there be additional laws to crackdown on people and websites who are distributing copyright material? Maybe... but SOPA and PIPA were not them. The other issue is should intellectual property be available to anyone who wants it, without paying for it, and able to distribute it as they feel fit to do? That's the issues. What does "Musicians will have to start making their money from concerts. And movie studios will have to improve the theatre experience enough to get people from behind their monitors and out of their basements" have to do with what this topic is all about?

It doesn't matter what laws they pass to prevent piracy, it will continue to happen. So you have to make your revenue streams in different ways. Russia jumped on a website that was trying to be a new napster and the owner moved his site somewhere else and it is still up and going.
And shutting down all the sites people can upload to will effectively be Chicom style censorship.

FredHayek wrote: It doesn't matter what laws they pass to prevent piracy, it will continue to happen. So you have to make your revenue streams in different ways. Russia jumped on a website that was trying to be a new napster and the owner moved his site somewhere else and it is still up and going.
And shutting down all the sites people can upload to will effectively be Chicom style censorship.

Ok... I need to know where you sit before you tell me where you stand. Do you have any problem with downloading copyright material without paying for it. A simple question that has a simple answer... yes or no?

And on a related note...

Dodd forswears a lobbying career (August 30, 2010)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chris Dodd(d) says he still doesn't know what he'll do come January 2011, when, for the first time in 36 years, he will no longer be a member of Congress. But he has ruled out one option.

"No lobbying, no lobbying," Dodd said in a recent interview.[/i] That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington's "revolving door," using his policy and political expertise--and a thick Rolodex--to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise.

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7485/lawmakerlobbyists

It certainly did come as a surprise... because guess who is the chief lobbyist for the MPAA and lobbying for SOPA and PIPA...

Consumer group accuses Hollywood of 'threatening politicians'

Consumer group Public Knowledge on Friday accused the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its head, former Sen. Chris Dodd, of trying to intimidate lawmakers into supporting a pair of controversial anti-piracy bills.

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,” Dodd said on Fox News
on Thursday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... oliticians

Outright intimidation by Ex. Sen Chris Dodd(d). Isn't that special?

I came across this video the other day.
SOPA and PIPA explained. Well worth watching.

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html