We have talked about e-readers and how they affect people’s interest in reading. This week we look at another aspect of the e-book popularity – piracy. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions. Note that I expect more from you than just answering my questions to get full credit.
Compare the controversy about music piracy with this new phenomenon. How are they similar and how are they different? Are the sites where the books are posted responsible for monitoring their sites for unauthorized content? The article states that “Publishers and authors say they can learn from their peers in music, who alienated fans by using the courts aggressively to go after college students and Napster before it converted to a legitimate online store.” What do you think they can learn and what should they do? Several authors expressed their opinions in the article. Which author’s opinion do you agree with?
Pirates on the Web Article
13 comments:
Both the artists and authors of music and books are upset because they are not getting paid for their copyrighted material, however they are different because I believe it natural to flock to the internet to get music (from programs such as iTunes, Napster, and LimeWire) however I don’t believe it is natural for people to go to the internet to get unabridged copies of books, for the reasons stated in the article, “…because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What’s more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version.” I do think that the founders of the sites are responsible for the content posted there, and they are responsible to make it very clear to the people posting that they will not allow illegal material to be posted and make repercussions for breaking those rules. I agree with the idea that you should be made to buy a book online, and I think that the authors are the ones who should push for that the most and turn these websites into the book equivalent of Napster, where you have to pay to buy a book. I think that they should make it clear to the public that downloading books is illegal and that there will be consequences in doing that. They should aggressively go after the people who post books online, if they don’t want to have their material posted online. I think all the authors had legitimate opinions for their situations. For example it clear why Steven King would be less worried about his books posted online—because he is wealthy enough, and well known enough to be secure, and not worry about it. And Cory Doctorow’s opinion makes sense because he has nothing to lose because he is so obscure. It’s only the people in the middle—the ones who are well known enough to be hurt financially by free online postings, but not well known enough to be rich and famous—who are harmed by these postings. I think that if the authors do not want their works to be published then they should follow the example of Harlon Ellison, who is truly aggressive in getting rid of the sites which show his book.
Downloading music file from the web is the most common method of acquiring songs of one’s favorite singers. However, downloading books from the internet in uncommon due to following reasons: Lack of uploaded lists of books; difficulties in reading on the screen; and computers being a stationary device, and therefore making it very much less attractive than simply purchasing the book from a bookstore. Despite those differences, both music and book piracy concurs in a sense of legality (which means both of them are illegal). The sites should be responsible for people posting unauthorized content since it is giving the illegal users of the web an opportunity to commit iniquities. Obviously, if illegal book piracy is hindering a talented author’s road to success, then immediately it should be terminated. However, if I were to be a writer who wrote books, I wouldn’t care too much about people downloading my work and reading it on their computers since I know if my books are fantastic, people will buy them. Perhaps, posting my work freely on the web can be used as an alternative means to gain popularity. Therefore I agree with Stephen Kings opinions, which doesn’t seem to mind too much about book piracy.
*PS: I just downloaded the electronic version of Stephen Meyer's Eclipse with no difficulties. This article is risking a huge side effect of actually advertising book piracy.
Honestly, I have never bought a book off the Internet. I only find it necessary to read online if I absolutely need to. I would much rather have a book with me as I lay down on a soft couch or hammock, instead of a laptop, or just sit at the seat of my computer and read. This sounds a lot like pirating music, which isn’t great either. Artists and Authors are getting ripped off, and I don’t really like the look of where things are going. I do use the Internet to purchase music, but I prefer using iTunes to purchase my music legally. It is also a site I can trust. Although, I am also an album collector, and if I really truly respect an artist, I will go out and buy their CD. I don’t believe it is natural for people to go to the Internet to get unabridged copies of books, for the reasons stated in the article, “…because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What’s more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version.” I do agree that Authors should be the people putting their books online, if they truly wanted to. The authors that are getting effected most by this “book sharing” are the ones that are not exposed to the mainstream as much, and are not quite as successful as people like Steven King, and J.K. Rowling, because they need all the money they can get, while their books are being read for free.
They are both upset for not getting paid for their copyrighted material. But the difference is that copying music off the Internet is different than copying books. Music is more natural to copy for example lime wire.
Of course the founders are responsible. They should make it clear that these acts are not allowed on their site. They should convert to being like napster; people should buy the books and not download them. They should also make online downloading books illegal and they should go after those who do post books online to be downloaded.
This is not going to affect the rich and wealthy writers, who it will affect, are those that rely on this money. For example Steven king would not be hurt since he has a lot of money. I agree with Doctorow’s argument. It’s reasonable.
Noor Mansur
Similar to the music piracy, digital files of books are also often pirated materials posted by unauthorized people. Unless the publishers release the books in the digital format, it would take quite some time for a person to scan all the pages in the books and turn it into a text file. On the other hand, music is rather easy to have digital files, because they all release albums with CD. I believe that the sites where the books are posted are responsible to censor the files being shared, because otherwise, there is no way to control the phenomenon. They can do that through effective use of filtering and monitoring the uploading and downloading files. From their peers in music, they learned that there always should be a balance of censoring. They may have to censor files in order to sell more products, but if they push it too hard, fans are going to turn their back against the companies. It is true that people are used to downloading such materials, but Napster and such file-sharing sites are not the cause of the phenomenon. I think it is very natural and inevitable phenomenon. I agree with the idea of Cory Doctorow, who publishes his books electronically for free of charge at the same day when he publishes hardcover books. It is because authors and musicians can be more popular through the internet, and honestly, there is virtually no way that companies can stop sharing files between internet users.
They are very similar; books are easily available online in both text and as audio books, the same as music. Also, similarly to music, books online can violate copyright laws set by publishers and can cut into their revenues. The sites need to monitor their information because they are legally responsible for what they host. The article states “Publishers and authors say they can learn from their peers in music, who alienated fans by using the courts aggressively to go after college students and Napster before it converted to a legitimate online store.” I think that they can learn by shutting down any problems quickly and this can help avoid them getting into the same mess. Harlon Ellison gives the best example of being aggressive about getting her books off the net. Ultimately, it is my opinion that having a book in your hand and on a screen are two different things. Any speakers can replicate music making piracy of it much more costly to the industry. Piracy of books however cannot replace the feel of a solid book in your hands, which is for many one of the most enjoyable aspects of reading a book.
I think that artists of music are more upset than the authors of book since music is a bigger thing than books. And everyone does it to get music, minimum people do it for books. The only simlarity is that they both have 'pirates'. The difference is that music is done more. Sites where books are posted are not responsible to monitor unauthorized content. I think each person has their own opinion depending on the way they look at this, but as for me I do not think Napster is too great. I agree with Stephen King mostly since he does not mind this thing too much like me. I think people should not care about this, or waste their time with stuff like this because in my opinion it cannot be stopped.
Frankly, both artists and authors should be upset because of they are not getting paid by the customers. I do think that they are different because music is frequently downloaded and used but books are frequently bought from stores. Although some people are using the E-reader. Off course each site is responsible for its content. What they should do is that they have to fight online piracy and offer their products at certain prices. Therefore I agree with Doctorow’s argument because he logically anticipated.
They similar because you basically download something illegally. Is it similar because people don't pay for it.they are downloaded by a program. They should be able to make it found only to people who either buy or just subscribe to someone's page.
I think that both artists and authors should be upset because they are not getting paid by the customers. No I do not think that they are different because you can find both music and books online for free. Yes, each site is responsible for its own content because they put the site up. Yes i agree with the doctor because what he is saying is very logical.
Both of these phenomenons are very similar to one another. Both artists and authors are getting upset when they see their work published on sites for free download without any copyright. I think that the sites should be more in control of what content is added to their sight and they should know if they have some form of copyright otherwise piracy will be allowed to roam free on that site. I think that authors and publishers can learn from the Napstar incident by creating a software program that is similar to I-Tunes which gives the stories of the authors as electronic copies, but at cheap prices. I agree with both Stephen Kings comment and Ursula K. Le Guin comments. I think that it is only natual for an author to get irritated because their books are being downloaded off the internet, but what can they do about it. There are so many people out there who are uploading the stories into the internet so do authors really have the time and energy to hunt down each and every person who rips the story away from the authors copyrights.
Both music piracy and book piracy are big crimes,and both authors and composers are getting upset from being stolen from. Both are resources found online being stolen off the internet.Yes, definitely because they authors and publishers and everyone involved are counting on the website to promote the book so it can sell, whereas instead the books are being stolen off their sites, they are responsible. They can learn about who the people stealing are, similar audiences, and they should track those people and put them away. I agree with Harlon Elison because he is most committed to getting rid of these irresponsible and unreliable sites.
Post a Comment