Napster clones turn their attention to academic e‐books

Abstract

This article discusses the effects of “Napster‐like” clone programs on the future of academic e‐books. This review will, first, catalogue the rise and fall of Napster and the development of clone programs that facilitate peer‐to‐peer file sharing; second, examine the main methods by which e‐books are placed on the Web; third, discuss piracy and the subsequent legal issues of intellectual property. Finally, the concept of e‐books in the world of academic publications will be analysed.

Initial findings of a gap analysis of the digital piracy literature: six undiscovered countries

“…In turn, popular literature has commented on the effect of piracy on the spread of electronic books (Rich, 2010). However, only a very small amount of prior work, notably in library and information science, has explored e‐book piracy (Hoorebeek, 2003; Zimerman, 2011; Blankfield and Stevenson, 2012). This dearth of research reflects a wide problem that very few scholarly studies have examined alternative media forms.…”

Intellectual gambling: betting on the future public library

“…It was Shawn Fanning, Napster's original architect, who first conceived of and manufactured the technology known today as peer‐to‐peer (P2P) file sharing. According to Hoorebeek (2003), Napster was a web site that integrated a P2P file sharing application with its server which consequently facilitated and permitted the transfer of requested MP3s. It works as follows: an individual user connects with Napster's server and submits a request for a particular song (or MP3), Napster then searches the hard drives of all the other users logged on to its server at that time and reports back to the individual user indicating which other users are in possession of the desired song, and finally Napster expedites the link between the individual user and another user who allows the specified file to be uploaded from their hard drive and subsequently downloaded to the computer of the petitioning user (Hoorebeek, 2003).…”

“…According to Hoorebeek (2003), Napster was a web site that integrated a P2P file sharing application with its server which consequently facilitated and permitted the transfer of requested MP3s. It works as follows: an individual user connects with Napster's server and submits a request for a particular song (or MP3), Napster then searches the hard drives of all the other users logged on to its server at that time and reports back to the individual user indicating which other users are in possession of the desired song, and finally Napster expedites the link between the individual user and another user who allows the specified file to be uploaded from their hard drive and subsequently downloaded to the computer of the petitioning user (Hoorebeek, 2003). It was this combination of the MP3 and the P2P file sharing technology that directly led to the explosion of public outcry and political controversy surrounding file sharing technologies that lives and breathes on even today.Napster opened its online doors in the summer of 1999; since then millions of MP3 files have migrated across the Web.…”

“…In the computer world word of mouth is of immense importance and Napster was suddenly the Internet's hottest topic. As more and more people logged on, more and more music became available (Hoorebeek, 2003, p. 142).…”

“…However, Napster's departure did not lead to the downfall of the P2P file sharing empire. On the contrary, the Napster episode was just a glimpse of the troubled adolescence endured by this type of software, and a multitude of newfound web sites utilizing P2P technologies have stepped forward to take the position previously occupied by Napster (Hoorebeek, 2003). According to Strickland (2003, p. 14), these sites differ from Napster in that they are “based on a true peer‐to‐peer architecture with no central control and no central index” which has inadvertently wrenched internet service providers (ISPs), and corporate entities that supply internet connectivity, such as libraries, into the on‐going litigious fray.…”