Its Evolution Stupid Peter Sunde Analysis
1. The text “It’s Evolution, Stupid” by Peter Sunde is against copyright and pro illegal downloading. On the other hand, the text “You like my poems? So pay for them” by Wendy Cope is pro-copyright. Peter Sunde is a co-founder of the illegal website “The Pirate Bay”, which was shut down by the Swedish police after prosecution from Hollywood. Sunde finds that the entire entertainment industry is corrupt and uses his own experience with the Supreme Court of Sweden as an example. The corruption in the industry is the reason why he encourages to go ahead and download movies illegal and violate copyrights. He believes that the industry needs to evolve, but it won’t. “The industry has made it their business to refuse and/or sure change…” Sunde claims.
…show more content…
She knows “a poem is very easy to copy,” but that doesn’t mean that it is less of a problem if it does get copied. With several examples Cope shows just how massive of a problem copyright violation of poems actually is. Even though Cope finds the violation is an issue for her own business, she doesn’t blame the actual offender, “often the offending websites are the responsibility of well-meaning enthusiasts, who have no idea that they are breaking the law,” Cope writes. She just wishes that people like Sunde, would know how harming and offending the copyright violation is to the individual poet.
2. Overall text 3 is more factual, formal and has better arguments than text 2 in general, but if you look at the individuals in text 2, there are several differences between them as well. The first person, Levi, is quite sarcastic and even speaks in metaphors, “I dream for a day when you can come into my coffee shop…” and continues by speaking about cake and cookies, which are metaphors for movies and other …show more content…
Wendy Cope pleads us all to understand that there is hard work behind every part of the entertainment industry and therefore we should not violate the copyright. The copyright laws must be protected in order to protect the author. Even though Cope doesn’t directly write anything about illegal downloading, there is no doubt that she is against it as well. One could say that illegal downloading and copyright violation gives the author of the work free publicity. They don’t need to pay for adds or anything, because their work is already out there, and if people like it, they will probably buy their work. To this Cope states “free publicity has no value if all that happens is that even more people download your poems from the internet without paying for them.”, this makes sense, but when it is up to only one industry alone to control the prices of the work, they can set the prices as high as they want, without anyone can do anything legally about it. That is a reason to download movies, music, etc. illegal, download without paying, so that the entertainment industry doesn’t benefits from it. In text 2 Clayton states “its not unwillingness to pay, its unwillingness to get ripped off.” In that way, you can view it as if there are two sides of the case. On one hand, there is the author of the work who is being disrespected and not earning a single penny if people download illegally or violate copyrights. On the other hand, there are the consumers, who seem to have grown tired of
She knows “a poem is very easy to copy,” but that doesn’t mean that it is less of a problem if it does get copied. With several examples Cope shows just how massive of a problem copyright violation of poems actually is. Even though Cope finds the violation is an issue for her own business, she doesn’t blame the actual offender, “often the offending websites are the responsibility of well-meaning enthusiasts, who have no idea that they are breaking the law,” Cope writes. She just wishes that people like Sunde, would know how harming and offending the copyright violation is to the individual poet.
2. Overall text 3 is more factual, formal and has better arguments than text 2 in general, but if you look at the individuals in text 2, there are several differences between them as well. The first person, Levi, is quite sarcastic and even speaks in metaphors, “I dream for a day when you can come into my coffee shop…” and continues by speaking about cake and cookies, which are metaphors for movies and other …show more content…
Wendy Cope pleads us all to understand that there is hard work behind every part of the entertainment industry and therefore we should not violate the copyright. The copyright laws must be protected in order to protect the author. Even though Cope doesn’t directly write anything about illegal downloading, there is no doubt that she is against it as well. One could say that illegal downloading and copyright violation gives the author of the work free publicity. They don’t need to pay for adds or anything, because their work is already out there, and if people like it, they will probably buy their work. To this Cope states “free publicity has no value if all that happens is that even more people download your poems from the internet without paying for them.”, this makes sense, but when it is up to only one industry alone to control the prices of the work, they can set the prices as high as they want, without anyone can do anything legally about it. That is a reason to download movies, music, etc. illegal, download without paying, so that the entertainment industry doesn’t benefits from it. In text 2 Clayton states “its not unwillingness to pay, its unwillingness to get ripped off.” In that way, you can view it as if there are two sides of the case. On one hand, there is the author of the work who is being disrespected and not earning a single penny if people download illegally or violate copyrights. On the other hand, there are the consumers, who seem to have grown tired of