Friday, October 4, 2013

paper




Ma, Zhaodong
Professor Klepper
English 113B
September 23, 2013
The Battle between the Internet and Copyright
Since the Internet was created, it became the most effective and fast way to work and study. The Internet has changed the way that people used to live since at the same time people have given the Internet more features to help share their life. You can find anything you want on the Internet in just a few seconds and enjoy its convenience and speed. However, you may receive an indictment from someone or some company saying that you are not legally allowed to read or listen to certain materials because they are copyrighted. Thus, people have to pay thousands of dollars for a penalty without knowing what exactly happened, and unfortunately there are many cases like that. People search and then download something without being stopped and they have to pay for this apparent “fault”.
 Well in my opinion, anything involving copyright should not be posted on the Internet until it becomes public domain. The Internet is a huge stage which is helpful to spread information quickly and because of that, it is also very hard to control. Although it is protected by copyright law, no one can guarantee that it is perfectly safe if people put their property online. Moreover, the reason why people keep illegally downloading is they don’t want to pay much money for something that can just be downloaded a few times and cannot be kept forever. From this point, I think that companies should decrease the price of their products, thus more people would be willing to pay.
    The Internet is considered to be a free platform where people can share and find something important or necessary to their life. If someone posts anything on the Internet, people automatically assume that they are willing to share with them. If not, then why post something online rather than saving them in the flash or elsewhere? Moreover, I don’t think people who share within a little group should be treated as copyright infringement even though it’s on the Internet. For example, in 2006 a single mother named Jammie Thomas was accused by a record company for downloading music illegally and had to pay as much as twenty two thousand dollars. The website where she downloaded music from was KASA. People would sign in and upload music which they were willing to share and download music that others shared. It was like a big house where family members can share their music. If people can legally share in their house, then why would it be illegal on the Internet?
    On the other hand, in order for people to protect their property they should not post or upload something that is personal or otherwise important. “Identity theft statistics are shocking! In the past five years, 1 in 4 Americans was a victim of identity theft making it America's fastest growing crime. Identity theft statistics indicate that this crime costs the government, businesses, and citizens of America billions of dollars each year (White Canyon)”. As modern technology began developing, the Internet was no longer a safe place anymore. People were trying to dig out information from others and use that information to achieve their goal. According to the Sunday Times, the hackers used stolen login details for a Postbank teller and a call center agent to transfer about $6.7 million into multiple bank accounts that were opened across the country late last year (Sarah Jacobsson Purewal)”. Thus from the person who are trying to post something involved copyright or other important information’s view, it is better idea to keep your property away from internet.
    Well no one can deny the fact that Internet is a super huge platform that can help individual and companies achieve their commercial goal. Even though it is very hard to protect their products from being stolen, they are willing to try to sell those products online. Because Internet is so flexible and visional, it is very hard to trace the person who steel or downloaded illegally. “The RIAA reports that music sales in the United States have dropped 47 percent since Napster first debuted in 1999. The availability of free music has cost the music industry $12.5 billion in economic losses. (Amy Adkins)”. Since the Internet is so large and complex, it is almost impossible to avoiding being hacked or stolen from. Benefits always go with risk.
    As previously mentioned, instead of downloading things illegally, people would prefer buying them at a lower price. Many don’t want to risk getting sued for downloading illegally, however they also don’t want to pay twenty dollars for one song which only allows to be downloaded few times. There are many solutions and one of them is to use the modern price model. “Theoretically, households will consider the relative cost of owning versus renting when making housing tenure choices.” For example, Coulson and Fisher (2002) found that the relative cost of buying versus renting is an important factor affecting household tenure choices. Sinai and Souleles (2005) found that when rent variance is high, housing demand increases. Himmelberg et al. (2005) compared the costs of house ownership in different cities in the USA. Their study reveals that the costs of ownership in cities constrained by inelastic supply are relatively higher than the costs of renting. One representative paper is that of Capone (1995), which builds a theoretical model to compare the cost of owning versus that of renting to describe how households make housing tenure choices (Tsai, I-C. and C-W. Peng).” Houses with a lower price, just like other online products, can bring much advantage of quantity thus bringing much benefit. Since people compare rental cost and house price, people would always consider the price of online products and downloading illegally. If they can get a lower priced product, then they wouldn’t want to download illegally which carries high risk.

    However, to some extent, piracy behavior sometimes helps companies or individuals gain benefit indirectly. “Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese “steal” Windows, the Chinese becomes dependent on Microsoft. Despite Microsoft losing the value of the software that was taken, it gains users who are using this software. Over time, as the nation grows wealthier, more and more people will buy software rather than steal it (Lessig, Lawrence).” Piracy has been shown to help artists gain more exposure as well as benefiting companies with what individuals’ desire. “Piracy may indirectly improve consumer and end-user demand for complementary products, such as apparel, merchandise and live performances ([107] Mortimer et al. , 2012). People who are thus exposed to a particular artist may be more inclined to seeing them live despite pirating their music. “In addition, the number of new product releases on an annual basis is increasing in the face of digital copying ([61] Handke, 2012).”
    In conclusion, copyright is very difficult to apply into the Internet. Whenever there is someone sharing, there is someone else illegally downloading.  People will always like free things especially if that item has a high price. If you want to connect to the Internet with your products then prepare to fight a battle. However, as mentioned above, companies may also benefit indirectly and if price become lower, thus benefitting both companies and people at the same time.


Work Cited

Amy Adkins , Demand Media, How Does Illegally Downloading Music Impact the Music Industry?, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/illegally-downloading-music-impact-music-industry-27748.html

Lessig, Lawrence.
Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity

Tsai, I-C. and C-W. Peng, 2011, Bubbles in the Taiwan housing market: The determinants and effects. Habitat International, 35, pp. 379–90.
Goode, S. (2012). Initial findings of a gap analysis of the digital piracy literature: Six undiscovered countries. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(4), 238-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17505931211282382



-













No comments:

Post a Comment