Today, getting information is easy, you just get on the internet on your laptop, smartphone etc. The internet is everywhere. Many young people can’t even imagine a world without the internet. We are used to sharing data on the internet, opening Facebook and share a photo it is a common thing to do, and we do not think about the copyright or if the thing we are sharing, has an originator. However, the sharing does not only consist of photos it is also movies, programs and other large and expensive things.
1.
The text 1 “It’s evolution, Stupid” by Peter Sunde is a text speaking for illegal downloading of movies, music etc. on the internet. Peter Sunde is a co-founder and ex-spokesperson of “The Pirate Bay”, which is a BitTorrent search engine. Peter Sunde believes it is evolution, he says: “Instead of looking at evolution as something inevitable, the industry has made it their business to refuse and/or sue change, by any necessary means” (p. 2 ll. 16-19) He believes that the entertainment industry refuses to evolve as the only industry and that they try to stop it. He also believes that what he is doing isn’t illegal and neither did the Swedish prosecutor, who sent out a memo saying: “…TPB wasn’t guilty of “main”-crimes – at best it aids and abets…”. Furthermore, he believes that the entertainment business is corrupt and that it controls the internet, he says: “The internet is being controlled by a corrupt industry. We need to stop it.” (p. 3 ll. 88-89)
Text 2 “You like my poems? So pay for them” is an article written by Wendy Cope who is an acclaimed English poet. The text deals with the importance of copyright for the originators of poems. She finds that the amount of illegal publishing of poems is enormous, she writes: “If I Google the title of one of my poems, it is almost always there somewhere, and I can download it and print it out.”(p.6 ll. 60-63) In spite of the violations, she believes that the websites and the illegal publishers are not doing it to do any harm but they are doing it with the best of intentions. She has written a poem on the subject in an attempt to bring attention to the matter. One of the problems she point out is that people should buy the books and not just copy it or when actors are presenting a poem, because this causes that the authors are not paid, “So the people who wrote the work are getting no benefit from the event.” (p.6 ll. 107-109). She also looks further than just right now, she also consider that happens when she dies and someone else makes money on her poems, which is not a thought she likes. She says: “I sometimes feels a bit annoyed by the prospect of people making money out of my poems when I’m too dead to spend it.” (p. 7 ll. 133-135).
2.
Text 3 is an article published in The Guardian and text 2 is four comments on the article from wired.com. The language in text 1 is written English but not with a high level of formality, and you are able to see what the text are meant to be understood by all, but still maintain its reliability. An example of this is: “In an attempt to do something about widespread ignorance of copyright law…” (p. 6 ll.88-89). The quoted passage illustrates how the language are understandably for the reader, but is it still not, as if it was spoken English because of the rather extended vocabulary. Comparing that to the other text, it is easy to see what the language in text 2 is language that is more colloquial. It says in the text: “…and then walk out with every piece of cake or cookie I see without paying you because… well, just because I can.” (p. 4 ll. 15-18). This is written as you would say it, and there are no difficult words we wouldn’t meet in our everyday speech. The differences in the language make sense since the communication situations are different. Text 3 is a published article and must wherefore be more formal in contrast to text 2 which is comments to another article and these comments are meant as a way to express your opinion and do not need to be formal. The comments in text 2 are just very long sentences whereas punctuation divides text 3, which makes it more readable.
3.
“We all know how evolution works, except one industry that refuses to evolve: the entertainment business”– Peter Sunde
Our technology is constantly evolving and it gives us many new possibilities and we should welcome these possibilities, or maybe we should respect the copyrights and not let this evolution ruin the entertainment business. Copyright violation and illegal downloading has its pros and cons. One of the pros could be that more people gets access to movies, music and other files, but sharing also has it cons since the corporations aren’t paid for the files getting downloaded, and this causes that the entertainment business loses money. Nevertheless, it should be possible to resolve this problem, but perhaps it is not. On the one hand, the corporations could require less for the product they’re offering, it might be possible to get people to pay for the products instead if just downloading it. On the other people might just keep downloading of the internet, and perhaps it isn’t a realistic possibility and we should just let the downloading keep going. You can look at it as a moral question which doesn’t only have one answer, but all the answer should be considered, whether it is for or against the copyright violation, it should be considered.