Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Wikipedia Protest: Websites Plan Jan 18 Shutdown Over SOPA
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 05:55 PM
We are one in the universe. We are all connected. Therefore, information belongs to everyone. Just because a person rewrites it, reproduces it, copies it, passes it on, people call that "plagiarism" or copyright violation. People are selfish egomaniacs. Steve Pavlinia writes and have made thousands with his blog Personal Development for Smart People and he recently put all his writings into public domain. He is a highly spiritual person. http://www.stevepavlina.com/ Releasing his copyrights http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/12/releasing-my-copyrights/ information belongs to everyone if the SOURCE of the information wishes to share it,,, I Have lived many moments and I have the information and detail about those moments, but just because this information exists doesnt mean I wish EVERYONE to have it or that sharing it with one person should cause me to be open to sharing it with EVERYONE I write music, and if I publish or have music manufactured, that costs me money ,,someone else doesnt have the right to come in and make the money off of what MY investment of time and money was,,, I dont consider that egomaniacal , I consider that being paid for effort and being able to recoup costs , someone that didnt make that investment or that effort shouldnt be equally free to benefit from it information belongs to everyone if its source agrees AND if those other persons arent making money off of it exclusively without SHARING the profit from that information,, msharmony You are speaking from the position of ego and materialism with this post Not the spirit of the cosmic consciousness or the idea that we are all connected.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 05:58 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 01/18/12 06:00 PM
We are one in the universe. We are all connected. Therefore, information belongs to everyone. Just because a person rewrites it, reproduces it, copies it, passes it on, people call that "plagiarism" or copyright violation. People are selfish egomaniacs. Steve Pavlinia writes and have made thousands with his blog Personal Development for Smart People and he recently put all his writings into public domain. He is a highly spiritual person. http://www.stevepavlina.com/ Releasing his copyrights http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/12/releasing-my-copyrights/ information belongs to everyone if the SOURCE of the information wishes to share it,,, I Have lived many moments and I have the information and detail about those moments, but just because this information exists doesnt mean I wish EVERYONE to have it or that sharing it with one person should cause me to be open to sharing it with EVERYONE I write music, and if I publish or have music manufactured, that costs me money ,,someone else doesnt have the right to come in and make the money off of what MY investment of time and money was,,, I dont consider that egomaniacal , I consider that being paid for effort and being able to recoup costs , someone that didnt make that investment or that effort shouldnt be equally free to benefit from it information belongs to everyone if its source agrees AND if those other persons arent making money off of it exclusively without SHARING the profit from that information,, msharmony You are speaking from the position of ego and materialism with this post Not the spirit of the cosmic consciousness or the idea that we are all connected. no, IM speaking from reality in my post. For instance, books cost money to publish; papers cost money to publish, write, edit and distribute; music costs money to record, publish, produce, manufacture, and distribute,,etc,,, 'information' is rarely merely words that people share, the means by which it is distributed and duplicated usually take time and money,, and those who didnt put in that time and money should not be able to earn the financial profit from it without the permission of those who did taking credit for what isnt yours, even if it is 'information' is no less dishonest than using property that isnt yours it doesnt take that much more to aknowledge the source and ask permission if we are just sharing 'information' no money is involved at all,, when money and profit come in the picture, it is more than JUST information,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:00 PM
Spiritually, we are one. We should be able to make connections as we choose. The Internet is at least part of that connection. There are no new ideas under the sun that need to be "protected" by a government that just wants to sensor and interrupt the free flow of information. There is nothing new under the sun. Give the government the power to shut down a website for "possible violation of copyright" is giving the the right to SHUT PEOPLE UP INSTANTLY, AND STOP THE TRUTH FROM SPREADING.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:02 PM
We are one in the universe. We are all connected. Therefore, information belongs to everyone. Just because a person rewrites it, reproduces it, copies it, passes it on, people call that "plagiarism" or copyright violation. People are selfish egomaniacs. Steve Pavlinia writes and have made thousands with his blog Personal Development for Smart People and he recently put all his writings into public domain. He is a highly spiritual person. http://www.stevepavlina.com/ Releasing his copyrights http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/12/releasing-my-copyrights/ information belongs to everyone if the SOURCE of the information wishes to share it,,, I Have lived many moments and I have the information and detail about those moments, but just because this information exists doesnt mean I wish EVERYONE to have it or that sharing it with one person should cause me to be open to sharing it with EVERYONE I write music, and if I publish or have music manufactured, that costs me money ,,someone else doesnt have the right to come in and make the money off of what MY investment of time and money was,,, I dont consider that egomaniacal , I consider that being paid for effort and being able to recoup costs , someone that didnt make that investment or that effort shouldnt be equally free to benefit from it information belongs to everyone if its source agrees AND if those other persons arent making money off of it exclusively without SHARING the profit from that information,, msharmony You are speaking from the position of ego and materialism with this post Not the spirit of the cosmic consciousness or the idea that we are all connected. no, IM speaking from reality in my post. For instance, books cost money to publish; papers cost money to publish, write, edit and distribute; music costs money to record, publish, produce, manufacture, and distribute,,etc,,, 'information' is rarely merely words that people share, the means by which it is distributed and duplicated usually take time and money,, and those who didnt put in that time and money should not be able to earn the financial profit from it without the permission of those who did taking credit for what isnt yours, even if it is 'information' is no less dishonest than using property that isnt yours it doesnt take that much more to aknowledge the source and ask permission if we are just sharing 'information' no money is involved at all,, when money and profit come in the picture, it is more than JUST information,,, Your "reality" is MATERIAL REALITY. You are worried about money. Also, "taking credit" for anything is all about EGO.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 06:02 PM
Spiritually, we are one. We should be able to make connections as we choose. The Internet is at least part of that connection. There are no new ideas under the sun that need to be "protected" by a government that just wants to sensor and interrupt the free flow of information. There is nothing new under the sun. Give the government the power to shut down a website for "possible violation of copyright" is giving the the right to SHUT PEOPLE UP INSTANTLY, AND STOP THE TRUTH FROM SPREADING. copyright infringement stems from the LAW of copyright,, that means we give credit for the ORIGIN of an idea (even if we can theoretically claim it isnt new) SOMEONE puts in time and effort and money to be CREDITED for the work and anyone after that who just comes upon it should be ASKING the permission of the one they received it from to SHARE it further,,, its not telling people to shut up, its telling people to be considerate of other peoples efforts and property,,,even intellectual

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:04 PM
Its like people who are healers. Do they take credit for a spiritual healing? If they do, then it is about ego. But if they are honest, it is God or cosmic consciousness that is doing the healing.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 01/18/12 06:05 PM
Spiritually, we are one. We should be able to make connections as we choose. The Internet is at least part of that connection. There are no new ideas under the sun that need to be "protected" by a government that just wants to sensor and interrupt the free flow of information. There is nothing new under the sun. Give the government the power to shut down a website for "possible violation of copyright" is giving the the right to SHUT PEOPLE UP INSTANTLY, AND STOP THE TRUTH FROM SPREADING. copyright infringement stems from the LAW of copyright,, that means we give credit for the ORIGIN of an idea (even if we can theoretically claim it isnt new) SOMEONE puts in time and effort and money to be CREDITED for the work and anyone after that who just comes upon it should be ASKING the permission of the one they received it from to SHARE it further,,, its not telling people to shut up, its telling people to be considerate of other peoples efforts and property,,,even intellectual And there where WMDs in Iraq too.....where does it end? Censorship is an attack on human rights! PERIOD!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 06:05 PM
We are one in the universe. We are all connected. Therefore, information belongs to everyone. Just because a person rewrites it, reproduces it, copies it, passes it on, people call that "plagiarism" or copyright violation. People are selfish egomaniacs. Steve Pavlinia writes and have made thousands with his blog Personal Development for Smart People and he recently put all his writings into public domain. He is a highly spiritual person. http://www.stevepavlina.com/ Releasing his copyrights http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/12/releasing-my-copyrights/ information belongs to everyone if the SOURCE of the information wishes to share it,,, I Have lived many moments and I have the information and detail about those moments, but just because this information exists doesnt mean I wish EVERYONE to have it or that sharing it with one person should cause me to be open to sharing it with EVERYONE I write music, and if I publish or have music manufactured, that costs me money ,,someone else doesnt have the right to come in and make the money off of what MY investment of time and money was,,, I dont consider that egomaniacal , I consider that being paid for effort and being able to recoup costs , someone that didnt make that investment or that effort shouldnt be equally free to benefit from it information belongs to everyone if its source agrees AND if those other persons arent making money off of it exclusively without SHARING the profit from that information,, msharmony You are speaking from the position of ego and materialism with this post Not the spirit of the cosmic consciousness or the idea that we are all connected. no, IM speaking from reality in my post. For instance, books cost money to publish; papers cost money to publish, write, edit and distribute; music costs money to record, publish, produce, manufacture, and distribute,,etc,,, 'information' is rarely merely words that people share, the means by which it is distributed and duplicated usually take time and money,, and those who didnt put in that time and money should not be able to earn the financial profit from it without the permission of those who did taking credit for what isnt yours, even if it is 'information' is no less dishonest than using property that isnt yours it doesnt take that much more to aknowledge the source and ask permission if we are just sharing 'information' no money is involved at all,, when money and profit come in the picture, it is more than JUST information,,, Your "reality" is MATERIAL REALITY. You are worried about money. Also, "taking credit" for anything is all about EGO. Im not 'worried' about money at all, IM aknowledging the reality that people dont spend money on things just to GIVE them away later for free to anyone who wants them and people generally dont like to have their things stolen me not wanting my neighbor to take my jewelry and claim it is hers is not about ego, its about wanting to be aknowledged for being the one who bought it and rightfully has the right to it and the right to DECIDE who to share it with and under what circumstance the same is true of music and works that people have invested their time and money into creating,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 06:07 PM
Spiritually, we are one. We should be able to make connections as we choose. The Internet is at least part of that connection. There are no new ideas under the sun that need to be "protected" by a government that just wants to sensor and interrupt the free flow of information. There is nothing new under the sun. Give the government the power to shut down a website for "possible violation of copyright" is giving the the right to SHUT PEOPLE UP INSTANTLY, AND STOP THE TRUTH FROM SPREADING. copyright infringement stems from the LAW of copyright,, that means we give credit for the ORIGIN of an idea (even if we can theoretically claim it isnt new) SOMEONE puts in time and effort and money to be CREDITED for the work and anyone after that who just comes upon it should be ASKING the permission of the one they received it from to SHARE it further,,, its not telling people to shut up, its telling people to be considerate of other peoples efforts and property,,,even intellectual And there where WMDs in Iraq too.....where does it end? Censorship is an attack on human rights! PERIOD! I dont know what to say if there is no difference seen between saying people CANT speak or say what they want and saying people cant make CLAIMS on what OTHERS have paid for,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:07 PM
Spiritually, we are one. We should be able to make connections as we choose. The Internet is at least part of that connection. There are no new ideas under the sun that need to be "protected" by a government that just wants to sensor and interrupt the free flow of information. There is nothing new under the sun. Give the government the power to shut down a website for "possible violation of copyright" is giving the the right to SHUT PEOPLE UP INSTANTLY, AND STOP THE TRUTH FROM SPREADING. copyright infringement stems from the LAW of copyright,, that means we give credit for the ORIGIN of an idea (even if we can theoretically claim it isnt new) SOMEONE puts in time and effort and money to be CREDITED for the work and anyone after that who just comes upon it should be ASKING the permission of the one they received it from to SHARE it further,,, its not telling people to shut up, its telling people to be considerate of other peoples efforts and property,,,even intellectual You do not understand what kind of power the government wants to have. If someone violates my copyright, it is up to me to sue them. That is a civil case. It is not the business of the government to get involved in a civil case between two people. That is the reason for the courts. They just want to have an excuse for shutting down a website that they don't want to be seen.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 06:08 PM
well, maybe it wont pass I really dont care either way,,,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:10 PM
THEY WILL DO IT WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM ANY COURT. WITHOUT A DECISION FROM A COURT. Then, if the people being censored prove that they own copyright to the material, they can get their sight back up again, but not after a court battle to do so. That means that they are being censored before a court decision about copyright has been decided. Its just an excuse to begin the long process of censoring the Internet. People will not stand for that.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 01/18/12 06:11 PM
You have to insure your car if you want to drive, it could be stolen, so what do you do? Lock it in a garage and never drive it? Film and record companies make millions, billions! Writers get notability to sell more books, ideas or articles. If you want to censor the internet then the media whores and papparazzi should be censored as well!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:12 PM
well, maybe it wont pass I really dont care either way,,,,, You and your complacent attitude about all of these kinds of things is what a tyrannical government loves. They actually wish everyone was as agreeable as you.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 01/18/12 06:15 PM
THEY WILL DO IT WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM ANY COURT. WITHOUT A DECISION FROM A COURT. Then, if the people being censored prove that they own copyright to the material, they can get their sight back up again, but not after a court battle to do so. That means that they are being censored before a court decision about copyright has been decided. Its just an excuse to begin the long process of censoring the Internet. People will not stand for that. like the way many people SIT in jail during trial even though they are not yet PROVEN guilty?

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 01/18/12 06:16 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Wed 01/18/12 06:26 PM
THEY WILL DO IT WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM ANY COURT. WITHOUT A DECISION FROM A COURT. Then, if the people being censored prove that they own copyright to the material, they can get their sight back up again, but not after a court battle to do so. That means that they are being censored before a court decision about copyright has been decided. Its just an excuse to begin the long process of censoring the Internet. People will not stand for that. like the way many people SIT in jail during trial even though they are not yet PROVEN guilty? They don't get arrested until "AFTER" an investigation of evidence and a grand jury indictment....how does that compare to censorship?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:18 PM
Its like my artwork. I post it on my sites and other sites. I know that posting it allows people to download it and print it and frame it etc. They can copy it and sell it if they think they can. I still own copyright on it. I'm not worried about anyone printing my pictures. If they publish them in a newspaper or brochure without my permission and without asking, and I find out about it, I simply send them a bill. They usually pay me right away. Want to see my copyright notice on my site: Here it is: A Word about Copyright Copyright © - now until infinity- Gloria Jean, Webmaster of this site. All rights reserved. All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright and trademark laws. Unauthorized use is not permitted. P.S. I stole the copyright notice posted above from another web site, substituted my name in it, and left some of the nasty threatening things about prosecution out of it. I am telling you this for a reason. Truth be told, every webmaster knows that if a person wants to steal your stuff there is not much anyone can do about it. (Oh, you can digitally sign each picture, and track them, but who wants to spend the time, energy and money to do that?) Stealing your browser's right click capabilities is just plain rude, nasty and mean and I dislike it when people do that to me, so I am not going to do that to you, besides it only annoys people. On a more personal note, all or most of the pictures on this site are my own shots except for a few which I borrowed for educational purposes. (The pictures on the Canyons page were borrowed because I have not taken the time to go hiking and taking pictures.) All of the code and design on this site is created by me. There is nothing fancy about it, as I like to keep things simple and easy, but a lot of work went into these pages. If you use any of my pictures publicly (on your website) please give proper credit to me for them and/or link to this web site. If you wish to use them privately, feel free and enjoy. But If you use the pictures or content wrongfully, or copy entire pages and publish them on your web site as your own, or copy my pictures to use as a logo or in your printed brochures without permission or giving due credit to me for them, you will probably be set upon by a dark curse from forces beyond my control, as it is the law of the universe, and I probably can't help you. Plus, I will probably find out about it, and send you a bill. With these facts in mind, do as you will and go in peace with love and blessings. Gloria Jean

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 01/18/12 06:23 PM
Sorry, gotta go....not on my game obviously....messing up posts... Don't want to appear "disoriented" in my thinking...it's my actions that are impaired....

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 01/18/12 06:23 PM
THEY WILL DO IT WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM ANY COURT. WITHOUT A DECISION FROM A COURT. Then, if the people being censored prove that they own copyright to the material, they can get their sight back up again, but not after a court battle to do so. That means that they are being censored before a court decision about copyright has been decided. Its just an excuse to begin the long process of censoring the Internet. People will not stand for that. like the way many people SIT in jail during trial even though they are not yet PROVEN guilty? People usually don't get arrested unless there is sufficient evidence against them, and they can always get out on bond usually.

esebulldog Joined Wed 08/05/09 Posts: 22342	Wed 01/18/12 06:25 PM