Monthly Archives: April 2013

ebooks v print

As I was looking for something to say about ebooks, I stumbled across this article.  What immediately stuck out to me was its title “Don’t Burn Your Books–Print Is Here to Stay”. These days, it seems like ebooks are continuing to increase in popularity, however, I can’t help but hope that traditional books will always be around. As I was reading the article, this statement surprised me: “By 2015, one media maven predicted a few years back, traditional books would be gone.”  While ebooks do make reading much more convenient and accessible, I would never have gone so far to say that by the time I would be graduating college, traditional books would be a thing of the past.  I think that while ebooks have there benefits, traditional books will always have a certain appeal to them as well. Abby mentioned in her comment to this post, “Can we look to our past to predict our future? Do people consider books technology?” which led me to the question:

with technology rapidly developing and ever-changing, do people expect the same from books?

are people getting bored by traditional books?

In my opinion, although the content is what truly matters, traditional books are what make reading such a peaceful experience.  Other mediums of reading add too many distractions. I find myself occasionally using reading as a distraction. I don’t want to be distracted from it. (If that makes sense).

ebooks

I personally have never used an ebook before.  When I go to read, I prefer to do so in a more isolated environment where I am as far away as possible from any distractions because for me, reading is about losing myself in the words and the stories I am reading.  I also love being able to physically flip the pages–it just adds to the experience.That being said, I do see how ebooks are convenient in todays constantly and rapidly changing world.  According to this CBS News article, “Ten years ago there were about 4,000 independent bookstores in the U.S. Today, there’s less than HALF that.”  The article also states that for ebooks, “Sales will go from about $150 million last year . . . to an estimated billion-dollar business by 2012, as new products from tech companies like Apple flood the market.”  I just hope that with the increasing number of new products, they continue to promote reading and don’t all become too tablet-like.

a case study (more photography)

well I seem to be on a photography binge today. Anyway here is a link to an interesting case of copyright violation in which one person photoshopped a previously existing photo submitted it to a contest and ended up winning.

the original picture carried a creative commons license but required attribution for distribution and the original photographer was never contacted or given proper credit. while the contest did require that “all submitted work be 100% original”  they ended up deciding that the original had been edited enough to qualify as a separate entity. while the manipulation was somewhat extensive (he changed the black circles to squares) since the real world consequences of this particular case have already been decided I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks about how this case would be settled legally.

Ethics of street photography (also copyright)

street photography is exactly what it sounds like taking portraits of people on the street. here is an example.

Ethically there is some debate in the artistic community as to wether if some one asks you not to take their portrait you are obliged to delete it. common courtesy would dictate that you should delete the picture out of respect for your subjects wishes. However because art is protected under the law and if the work is culturally valuable many photographers feel they do not need to follow common courtesy. Recently I read this article. while this article argued the same points I just made it did make me think. one of the key points of the article is educating the public about what you are doing. several years ago I took a photo of two homeless men smoking something (i think it was crack) in a park in new york. they freaked out and left (I think they thought I was a cop or something) now I wish I had approached them and told them what I was doing instead of freaking them out.

As far as our class is concerned how does this factor legally into the ownership of the portrait. Lets assume that a photographer has taken your picture without your knowledge and you only find out about it several months after the fact when you see the picture online and the photographer has made  a  load of money. Technically the photographer owns the rights to the image and is completely in the clear legally. However does this not feel like a violation of copyright law? If you as a person can’t claim the right to your own image that seems to be a HUGE flaw in the copyright laws of the art world.

Ebooks that change the way we write

This article made me really think about all of the different ways that ebooks can impact writing. Ebooks gather so much data from users each time they pick up a book. Ebooks provide the exact data of how a reader interacts with a text like where they stop, where they read quicker or slower, and what they reread. What if readers statistically lost momentum in a book around page 150? Then the publisher could take this exact data into consideration and add a plot twist. Or what about personalized ebooks? Much like the advertisements on the sidebar of Facebook, ebooks could be individually targeted at consumers.

A Centralized Store to Buy Copyrighted Material

Would a centralized store to buy copyrighted material be a good idea?  I don’t know how having such a store would be fathomable.  A very powerful company or organization would have to run it, like the government, which would make people hate it automatically.  It would be an easy way to determine who bought and downloaded what, but there would be no competition.  All ebooks would be buying their books from the same store; there would be no pricing differences for companies to outbid against each other; all music would be sold through one company instead of many different record labels.  One entity would own all distribution rights to everything in the world.  I don’t think this sounds very good, do you?

On a lighter note, since we are talking about ebooks and such, here is a video of an iPad being microwaved! ps. it explodes!!!!

E-books

I am and I think I will forever be anti E-books. In my first portfolio I argued that copyright is not doing it’s job of protecting original works by allowing E-books to be around. Although it is protecting the content of works, it lacks to protect the formatting, feel, and experience of reading a book. In her book, The Book: The Life Story of a Technology, Nicole Howard wrote, “printed books are the product of a press, but long before the type is set, it is the author’s vision and voice that makes possible a book’s existence.” To me, it is important that such vision and voice are protected in addition to just protecting the content. And with E-books, I do not think it is possible to have such protected.

On a different note, having never used a kindle before, I was appalled to find out that on certain kindles there are adds that pop up in the middle of reading. I think that that is absolutely ridiculous. How can you possible stay on track and indulged in a book, when there are adds popping up all over the place. The experience can’t possibly be the same as reading from a regular book. And that isn’t fair to the reader or to the author who wrote the work.

Elementary Schools and Ebooks

Last summer, two professors from East Carolina University published a study called “Reading Engagement: A Comparison Between E-Books and Traditional Print Books in an Elementary Classroom.” According to the results of the study, third grade students indicated a “preference for e-books when given the option of a wide selection of titles and the freedom to choose their own e-book.”  E-books are more “interactive and allow for children to become actively engaged in the text.”  This is incredibly important for developing children’s interest in literature and affects their motivation to read later in life.

T.Swift Parody take 2

I noticed that Daniel posted about a parody of Taylor Swift’s song,“I Knew You Were Trouble.” In his post he argued that the pokemon parody he posted about in fact fell under fair use for obvious reasons that it was a parody and not actually taking away from the popularity of Taylor Swift’s song. However, he also made the point that the video was aimed at audiences that didn’t like Taylor swift. To me that is an interesting point. It does logically make sense that if someone does a parody of another song that means that they are making fun of it, and that they probably don’t like it. But as a Taylor Swift fan, I still enjoyed watching the pokemon parody of her new song, as do I greatly enjoy the goat parody of her new song. Thus, I would have to disagree that such parodies are aimed at audiences who are anti Taylor Swift. I think that these were created more simply for entertainment purposes. Especially in regard to the goat video, I do not think that the message is that the creator thinks Taylor Swift sings like a goat. But rather, I think the creator thought (and thought correctly) that the incongruity of a goat popping up and screaming the one part of the song would be hilarious. Thus, I do not believe that all parodies have to be anti the original creator of the work.

That being said, most of the time, parodies probably are poking fun at the original work to appeal to audiences who are anti the original creator. For example, as Im sure everyone has seen, Rebecca Black’s Friday song video, has loads of parodies made from it.  But unlike the goat or pokemon video, these parodies are in fact “hating” on Rebecca Black’s song.

More on Self-Publishing…

Margaret Atwood, a highly respected contemporary poet, posted this article about self-publishing on Twitter yesterday.  It’s a funny and informative take on self-publishing.  This blogger claims that self-publishing is difficulty and often unsuccessful, writing that, “self-publishing successfully takes a certain kind of reach and/or work ethic.”  In light of my previous blog post, which opinion do you agree with more? Pro or anti self-publishing?