Thinking about ebooks and their pros and cons, I realized that I am much more familiar with their pros even though I myself am pro-paperback book. I think that since we live in a technological world, people tend to be more eager to accept ebooks and see them in a positive light than they are to see their negative qualities. Considering that, I decided to do a bit of research into the cons of ebooks since I am not quite as familiar with this side of the ebook revolution. Here are a few articles I found regarding this:

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/133298.html

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/technology/10-things-ebooks-wont-tell-you-1330727533599/

After browsing the internet for a bit I came across yet another copyright infringement case, this time dealing with the TV show South Park. Apparently, “South Park found themselves in the middle of a copyright infringement suit because of a South Park episode entitled “Canada on Strike,” which allegedly infringed on Plaintiff Brownmark Films, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “Brownmark”) copyright in WWITB”. After reading about this case, I began to think about just how many well-known TV shows or other media forms have had to deal with copyright infringement cases just as this. It seems as if a lot of these cases take place under the radar and  simply unnoticed by society. I’m not sure if this is because these sort of cases happen so frequently or if it is because people simply do not care about this sort of news. I wonder just how many of the TV shows that I watch on a weekly basis have also dealt with infringement cases such as this.

http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/-copyright-law-south-park-prevails-in-copyright-infringement-case-thanks-to-the-fair-use-doctrine.html

Although the rise of ebooks has undoubtedly introduced a number of positive elements into society, it has also produced a strain on privacy and financial comfort among many individuals. Privacy is actually a big issue that the rise of ebooks has infringed upon, which I know many people might find surprising. In fact, some might ask, how is something as simple as a digital book capable of taking away a person’s privacy? To answer this question, many teachers nowadays use ebooks to track their students’ everyday reading trends and habits. Although this can be beneficial for numerous reasons and can assist in creating a better learning experience for the reader, it certainly does cross a line in regard to reader privacy. A person’s reading experience should be private—between themself and their chosen book. Ebooks make this difficult to happen, consequently changing the overall definition of reading as a whole from one centered around the private person to something much more public. My essay will explore this topic.

In this article published in Oxford Journal’s Forum for Modern Language Studies, Tania Su Li Cheng argues that copyright’s ultimate purpose is for “the encouragement of learning…[through the] creation of new works for the overall benefit of society.” Cheng then argues that J.K. Rowling has misused copyright protection laws by using them to protect the Harry Potter brand from sequels and parodies. Rowling and her lawyers used copyright laws to stop authors in different countries from trying to publish Harry Potter and Leopard Walk Up to the Dragon (China), Harry Potter in Calcutta (India), and Tanja Grotter and the Magical Double Bass (Russia). Although these versions added something different to the story, I currently side with Rowling that she should be allowed to protect her stories.

I find it surprising that Oprah’s Book Club continues, although Oprah herself no longer airs a popular show on NBC. Here is an article in my hometown newspaper, The Sacramento Bee, about book recommendations. One of the books, Oleander Girl, is touted as being on of “16 New Books to Get Lost in This April” by Oprah’s Bookclub 2.0.” I then clicked to Oprah’s website the link that the online news article provided. (Here is the link to Oprah’s Book Club website.)

I guess I figured that once Oprah ended on primetime, her influence would dissipate over time. Apparently, this isn’t necessarily the case as Oprah (or her people) still seem to be actively involved in promoting different book. I would be interested to see if former views who participated in the book club continue to do so.

When trying to think about how to make the court case I am going to write about in my paper fit with audio, at first I couldn’t think of anything.  Then I thought I would do a news report answering the question (reporter) and the opinions on the case (justices) and the outcome combined with the importance (judge).  By speaking through these personalities on audio it makes it very clear.  The remainder of this blog will be a rough draft.

Reporter: “Here we are outside the Supreme Court waiting for a decision on the Kirtsaeng v. Wiley case.  This case is of constitutional importance because it will either extend the powers of international copyright or contract them.  Also, it is key in the use of websites such as Amazon that buy and resell goods. Here come the justices now with their opinions!”

Justice Breyer:  “Six of us justices have decided that it is lawful under the constitution to buy and sell goods overseas.  Kirtsaeng is protected under the law and may do this action.  The constitution says that geography does not limit the sale of goods therefore this is ok.”

Justice Ginsburg: “Myself and two other justices disagree with this evaluation.  This action only hurts the copyright law and other companies.  This was not the intended way the law was to be used as set up by Congress.  The purpose of the law is to protect the creators of goods from getting taken advantage of which is exactly what this action allows.”

Reporter: “So there we have it although the court rules in favor of Kirtsaeng it was not unanimous and there is dissent. ”

link  link 2 

While looking at the initial title to this article (link) it appeared to be the same thing to me as Spotify.  Although it isn’t there are many cases where products are extremely similar  to other products.  But at what point does copyright protect products and services from being copied?  For example, generic pharmaceuticals are the exact same thing as the original drugs only with a different name.  They also undercut the market for the drug by offering lower prices.  I know the ruling on drugs is that generics have to wait a certain number of years before producing the copy of the original product.  Although I am familiar with this business I wonder what the policy is for other products such as computer programs.  The search engines such as Google, Ask Jeeves and others are very similar but how different do they have to be to pass the copyright laws.  Is it one feature that can be different or does the name just have to be different for it to be legal?

While watching the Soprano’s there was a part that had to do with copyright.  A rapper was trying to receive compensation for a relative being taken advantage of because of his musical talent.  He demanded reparations for it.  It just goes to show that copyright is even important in illegal activity, it’s everywhere.