Books and eBooks - what's going on with them

The author of the best selling children's book "The Gruffalo" (Julia Donaldson), has announced that she does not want to turn her stories into eBooks because the electronic devices distract children from what they are reading. This shows that there is still a lot of hostility towards eBooks.

However, JK Rowling, the author of the bestselling "Harry Potter" series, has contrastingly said that the aforementioned series would  be allowed to be published as Ebooks. This is a sudden change of stance on Ebooks, which at first she, like Julia Donaldson, had scorned. This shows that although many people now are not fans of Ebooks, their opinions might be rapidly changing.

In the wake of book stores "Angus and Robertson" and "Borders" collapsing,  e-books have suddenly become more popular, with eBook retailer Kobo announcing a 30% increase in their site traffic. This shows that e - books are perhaps taking advantage of money shortages in the book industry to increase their sales dramatically, and are perhaps the reason for the bankruptcy of the the two above stores (excepting of course Kobo.)

Lendle, the online eBook lending service, has been killed off by Amazon in an attempt to further increase  e -books sales by the latter. This shows that Amazon, who owns the rights to the Amazon Kindle, can get very protective of its eBooks.

The policy of libraries and eBooks (that, like with a normal book, once it is brought, it is forever owned by the library), has now been changed by the publishing firm "Harper Collins." Now, once the eBooks have been taken out a certain number of times, the library has to pay a renewal fee to the publishers. This shows that publishers are realising the importance of eBooks, and so are trying to milk as much money as possible from them.

Some publisher now wish to add more to Ebooks; instead of just copying the text and digitalizing it, they would also add audio and video to it. This could have an up side; for example, as stated by Shane Richmond of the Daily Telegraph, you could read a music theory book, and it would be made so much easier by the music being discussed right there on the page. However, there is another school of thought (which I personally agree with) saying that it would simply just not be a book anymore. Either way really, I don't just see why you don't just buy an audio - book!

Marc Parrish, the executive of American book company "Barnes & Noble", has recently said in a conference that e - book sales were, perhaps in the next 24 months, goiung to overtake normal book sales completely. This shows that some experts of the publishing and book industries share the view that Ebooks will soon overtake normal book sales. This comes with the news that America's Ebook sales have doubled whilst normal book sales have plummeted.

References: http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=books+and+Ebooks

Books and e - books - why they're important

The traditional book has been around for centuries, but now a threat has appeared that might result in their downfall; the e - book. This is an electronic book that is digital and can be read on computers of some sort, most often tablets such as the Ipad or Kindle.

These e - books are becoming increasingly popular; in 2010, Amazon, the online shopping centre, announced that it had sold more  e - books (through its Kindle) than paperback books. This proves that the e - book is becoming increasingly important as it has already overtaken paperback books in some places. However, this view is overshadowed by the fact that, although the e - books are roughly the same price as the normal books , the tablets  themselves are hugely costly. Again however though, Rupert Murdoch, who owns much of the news corporation BSkyB, thinks that soon most people in developed countries will own tablets of some sort, which eliminates the previous down side of e - books.

Another problem though is that many people believe that e - books are not as personal as normal books; you cannot deform an e - book as you can a normal book. Also, when people read books, they are often doing this just before they go to sleep, and it has been proven that electronic screens can negatively affect your quality of sleep if used an hour or less before bed. However, to combat the last reason, the newest Amazon Kindle has been made with special technology that makes it look very dim and almost like a book. However, the Ipad does not have this function, as, unlike the Kindle, it has more functions than providing a screen for e - books, such as a touch - screen work laptop or a portable games console.

   

  Kindle; like a book?                                                                                      Ipad ; nothing like a book.


References: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1521090&highlight&ref=tsm_1_tw_kin_prearn_20110127

https://sites.google.com/a/stpaulsschool.org.uk/4thform-ict-1011/home/goog_726009803

James Bridle (a talk by him in school)

List of remixes and mashups that had to be taken down

Normal guy vs Edward Cullen; the music was copyright and so had to be swapped for some other music.

A scene from the film "Downfall" was many times remixed with strange lyrics to make fun of Hitler, but this was taken down for copyright reasons by the makers of the film.

Some remixes from OC Remix had to be taken down upon request of the original artists of the footage\music.

Julian Assange - a short biography

Julian Assange, a forty year old man born in his native country of Australia on the 3rd July 1971, is the editor in chief of Wikileaks. As a youth, he did computer programming and was a hacker, and now he tours around the world giving talks on subjects such as free press. He has received a number of awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award.

His job has, as mentioned above, brought him rewards, but it has also cast him, unfairly or fairly, in a bad light; he received much of the blame for the Wikileaks crisis in 2010, when the latter site released details of UN diplomatic circles and comments. Also, he has faced extradition to Sweden on charges of sexual assault.

Assange is currently planning to write an autobiography, but says that he is only doing this to keep himself afloat financially.

Wikileaks - A summary

Wikileaks, launched in 2006 under the "Sunshine Press Organisation", is a non -profit company run by its Australian spokesman Julian Assange and its aim is to create open government and fight oppressive regimes. It achieves this by collecting videos, audio tracks and written reports and records, focusing on subjects such as the Iraq War and international diplomacy.

There are many good things about Wikileaks: it encourages free speech and press freedom; it encourages open governments and politics; it encourages people around the world to share information on the internet; it has of keeping its sources confidential; and it helps to fight (and possibly bring down) oppressive regimes.


However, Wikileaks is not all good; there are a number of serious flaws to it: It can cause danger to democratic societies, such as the UK, by revealing security information and thus exposing them to unfriendly countries and terrorists; It can destroy privacy and people's self - confidence and/or careers; and it poses a threat of serious (e.g. violent) revenge on sources by the people or governments who or which have been exposed by them.


Some examples of their work are the Iraq and Afghanistan War Diaries (http://213.251.145.96/iraq/diarydig/) and the video of two journalists being killed by American soldiers in a helicopter (http://www.collateralmurder.com/)


Trouble was bound to occur with Wikileaks, and in 2010, it did, and in epic style. Wikileaks had published information on its website about the comments of UN diplomats - some of which were hugely embarrassing, including the continued urges of the Israelis to the USA to invade Iran - and also about the security structures of many countries in the UN, which consisted of things like the whereabouts of secret service bases. Britain featured in both sets of information. This shows that the aforementioned point about Wikileaks being a threat to the security of democracies to be very real.


The matter split global opinion; many thought that Wikileaks had gone too far and that they had been reckless and aided terrorism; whilst others believed that Wikileaks had just done what they had set out to do; to create open government; and when a few days after the crisis came to public light, Julian Assange appeared in court on charges of sexual assault and faced extradition to Sweden if found guilty, a movement called the "Justice for Assange" group was formed, claiming that the UN, and the USA in particular, was framing him for the publishing of the information, which was, in their opinion, a good thing.


These problems still exist now. Bradley Manning, a former US army specialist, has recently faced 22 separate charges, centring around aiding the enemy. Manning was in fact, the person who gave Wikileaks the video "Collateral Murder (link above)" and this is the reason that he is facing the charges, which, if he is found guilty, will equate to a death sentence. This proves that the afore - mentioned point about Wikileaks posing a threat of serious (e.g. violent) revenge on sources by the people or governments who or which have been exposed by them to be true. It also detracts from Wikileaks up till now perfect record of confidentiality among its sources.


So, in conclusion, certainly in my opinion, Wikileaks is not such a good thing, as it poses a threat to (a) the people and governments that it incriminates and (b) the sources. Also, the benefits; the possibility of open government and the fighting of oppressive regimes, are either not as important as their negative counterparts or they can be done by military forces. Basically, it is a dangerous weapon against all it incriminates, no matter who they may be, and to those that help it, and is not needed in society.

Example of Wikileaks work

This video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF2miwIWOE4&playnext=1&list=PL1B4EDF7486CFD128

Video on Julian Assange and Bradley Manning

This video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_VOdvqn5I

Article on Wikileaks about its usefulness

Note: this article is by "Buzzle staff and agencies" and can be found at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/does-wikileaks-empower-the-public-or-simply-create-more-problems.html 

Does WikiLeaks Empower the Public or Simply Create More Problems

WikiLeaks has recently published a massive inventory of top secret U.S. Military documents detailing various aspects of the war in Afghanistan.

With the recent publication by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of classified documents from the U.S. Military and other agencies related to the war in Afghanistan, some are calling into question the value of the organization’s services. There are a few things more sensational in journalism than top secret or classified information being made public without the authorization or complicity of the secretive parties involved. Throughout recent history, such revelations tend to bring down political regimes and expose conspiracies, the depths of which the general public can only begin to understand.

As WikiLeaks has begun publishing secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan, it seems appropriate to ponder exactly how much value this type of service offers the public at large. Certainly, there is value to having a media arm that is capable of and willing to publish secret documentation without fear of consequences from the powers that be. That alone is certainly worth something, especially in instances where corruption and injustice are exposed to the eyes of the world. The value begins to get a little skewed, however, when top secret documents are published that can have an adverse impact on individuals with no knowledge of the documents themselves. That would seem a likely outcome of this most recent "WikiLeak", although in fairness to the organization, they seem to go to great lengths to vet the information they receive in order to prevent such instances, if they are in fact avoidable.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is an appropriately shadowy figure in his own right, although to his credit he has been available to make statements in support of his company’s mission and their actions, even when they find themselves under scrutiny from the most powerful governments and intelligence organizations in the world. And among some of the information in the newly leaked Afghan documents, there seems to be growing support for claims that Pakistani military and intelligence officials have been actively supporting the Taliban even while U.S. efforts are ongoing to defeat them. This would seem to be very interesting information for the American public, but it’s hard to quantify exactly what such information means.

To further illustrate the complexity of the issues surrounding WikiLeaks, the site’s About Us page reads, in part, "We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people." And while that statement in and of itself seems wholly true, it still creates problems when the necessary transparency and scrutiny is provided by a third party who ultimately decides just how transparent it wants to be with the information it has received. It’s also difficult to determine context when only certain documents are "leaked", when others may exist that refute or question the "facts" in the leaked documents. Are the leaked documents that most relevant to the issues at hand, or are they simply drafts or documents that have contributed to reaching a much different conclusion, not discussed in the documents themselves?

When documents are leaked that reveal new information or provide clarification on a specific situation or event, it’s difficult to place a qualitative value on the information without a complete picture of "all" of the documentation involved. Suffice to say that we’ll probably never receive that level of transparency in any government, nor would that necessarily be a good thing.

And when only a portion of the picture of any situation is revealed, are we running the risk of demonizing the wrong parties or of perhaps adding more misunderstanding and corruption to a situation where it would have otherwise been avoided? These are difficult questions that must be considered and answered as much as possible each time WikiLeaks posts new information on its site. The intent of the site appears to be in the right place, but the likelihood of maintaining a positive impact when releasing otherwise secret information seems extremely remote, at best.

Once armed with any new and revealing information, the general public is still helpless, for the most part, to effect any immediate change on its own. For that to occur, a new election cycle must occur (where democratic governments are involved), and by then the primary players in any government cover-up or conspiracy will have had plenty of time to cover their asses and create new stories to explain the exposed information. At the end of the day, it’s difficult to leverage any information from WikiLeaks as citizens, but I suppose it’s possible to use the leaked information to prod legislators and other leaders to act appropriately in the face of the danger that they themselves might one day be exposed.

Article on Wikileaks about some of their incriminating information on other websites

Note: this article is by "Brad McCarty" and can be found at: http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/04/the-greater-problem-of-wikileaks-when-innocent-sites-become-the-victims/

The greater problem of Wikileaks: When innocent sites become the victims

Over the past few weeks, it’s almost impossible to open a browser without seeing something about Wikileaks. The site, embroiled in controversy, has brought more than its share of problems to other businesses, as well. At this point, Amazon, PayPal and others have all hadGovernment pressure to cease services to the site. The question that comes up is what happens if and/or when your own site becomes involved with a situation such as the one surrouding Wikileaks.

The Amazon Experience

Amazon has found itself in two situations, recently, wherein it had to make difficult business decisions. In the first case, its self-publishing format for the Kindle was playing host to a book that served as an instruction manual for keeping a pedophile safe. After public outrage, Amazon first chose to continue hosting the book, stating that it didn’t condone censorship:

Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.

The site did eventually pull the book, perhaps succumbing to the public understanding that Amazon as a retailer was making a choice to profit from its sale. Further, censorship is a word that Amazon representatives did not seem to fully understand. As the publisher, Amazon has the sole ability to decline to publish a work; a situation that happens in publishing houses daily.

With Wikileaks, Amazon’s AWS played host to the information that was being disseminated. Government pressure was laid onto Amazon to pull the content, and Amazon eventually did. However, a statement from Amazon paints a different light onto the scenario than what we as the public would have believed:

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate…AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them.

The obvious question is whether Amazon should adopt a pre-screening policy for its hosting. While it absolutely would add to the work for Amazon, it might prevent future issues. Simply put, Amazon likely did get clued to the potential Wikileaks issues but the problem could have been averted by a screening method.

The Trials of Twitter

A couple of years ago, the US Military released  a reportdetailing the ways in which terrorist organizations could use Twitter and other forms of onlinecommunication to plan attacks. While we’re not at the point of calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, recent government pressure against other sites leads us to believe that Twittercould be next. Given that the Wikileaks account is still active on Twitter, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Twitter have to answer those questions as a U.S.-based business.

We’ve reached out to Twitter for comment, but as of yet have not received a response. However, given past circumstances surrounding activities deemed illegal in the United States, Twitter would likely point to its terms of service. This is a simple rule that nearly any site needs to think of in advance when hosting user-submitted content. Those terms of service are a life-saver, as long as they’re enforced.

PayPal Problems

As was the case with Amazon, PayPal has a distinctly different problem on its hands. In being the donation source for Wikileaks, not only was PayPal enabling the site to continue financially, but also PayPal was benefitting monetarily via its surcharges. While PayPal has now cut off Wikileaks’ access to its financial donations through the site, there will likely still be questions to be answered by PayPal from the U.S. government agencies that are now involved.

Who’s Next?

At first, the only sites which had to worry about the Wikileaks ordeal were those hosting content in affected countries. However, as the case continues to grow, more sites are becoming part of the grand scheme, even if unwittingly. At this point, any site which hosts, links to or otherwise makes available the Wikileaks content runs the risk of government involvement — especially those based in the United States.

So who’s next? It’s a question to which the answer remains to be seen. Moving forward, it is simply advisable that site owners are more cognizant of what is being hosted on their servers. This situation has shown us, at a minimum, that the release of information holds the capability of causing problems for everyone, even if a site had no intention of becoming involved.

Wikileaks - The Movie

Note: This article is by "The Age" and can be found at: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/spielberg-to-call-action-on-wikileaks-film-20110303-1bgd1.html

 

Spielberg to call action on WikiLeaks film

March 4, 2011

HOLLYWOOD film mogul Steven Spielberg has bought the rights to the story of the WikiLeaks saga, The Guardian newspaper reported.

The Guardian was one of five media outlets used by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to publicise the thousands of classified US documents relating to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and diplomatic cables.

Reportedly conceived as an investigative thriller, the film will be backed by DreamWorks - the studio founded in 1994 by Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The book charts Julian Assange's life from his itinerant childhood to the creation of the WikiLeaks website in 2006.

It also provides the inside story of Assange's partnership with The Guardian and the release of more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables.