| <IP: Let's pull down the wall>
When I was in elementary school, kids used to download the top100 chart music from a website and sent to their friends over. Nowadays, to do the same thing, you got to put lot of time and efforts fining the website. Downloading music or movies from the Internet for free is an illegal act but this issue has been very controversial. There are various opinions insisted from different kinds of people. However I believe the magnitude of intellectual properties protection should be limited for following reasons; means to spread a culture, share with neglected group of people and enjoy all together.
First of all, sharing those contents files on Internet can actually be a way to spread and advertise a different culture. Contents imports and exports is an official means to propagate new culture or creative work but some illegal downloading has greater effects. For instance, the biggest reason why K-wave got so popularized not only in Asia but other continents is because of the clips that were uploaded in the Internet. It sounds awkward though intellectual piracy has made more people to get attracted to the Korean music or dramas which led to the huge K-wave industry.
When we talk about intellectual properties, the essence of this discussion is whether we should pay some kind of compensation for the use. If we consider the marginalized people, however, downloading music, movies or dramas should be freely done. There are numbers of people who cannot afford money or time to enjoy those contents officially but that should not be accepted as they don't have rights to watch and listen. For the elders, poor, cultural backwater people, intellectual properties such as music or movies should be learned easily through the Internet.
Last but not least, over protection of the intellectual properties may lead to lack of enjoying the contents especially the music. There were many instances that people had absurd experiences related to the illegal use of music. Also even using it as background music is prohibited. For example, a mother uploaded a video of her son dancing to a song but the original singer reported to make her put down the video because she used the music without a consent. Music exists to be heard and enjoyed but if it's forbidden like this instance, then I'm curious about the meaning of its existence.
In conclusion, even though it is significant to protect creators' creativity and their intellectual properties, we should also be considerate of those who enjoy the contents. I think all those intellectual properties including visual, sound, written or any kinds of contents are there to be shared and amused together. If only certain designated people who are blessed to see, hear, read and feel those new and creative work, wouldn't it be unfair?
|
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
201101481ParkJean/ IP:Let's pull down the wall/ Argumentative essay/ Thur56
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Park Jean:) I read your essay well. It was interesting because you have a different point of view from me. Your thesis statement takes a clear position. And you have a counter-argument in your conclusion with a refutation. There are many noun clauses and adverbial clauses led by if and though. In conclusion you repeated the the reasons in your argument well. Thanks for sharing !
ReplyDeleteGayoung Kim | Great writing! It is well organized and have various supporting details. But the first paragraph seems a bit too long. Maybe your writing could be better if you adjust the length little bit. Just my personal opinion! Thank you for sharing!!
ReplyDeleteGayoung Kim | I remembered I didn't mention a few questions in the list.
DeleteThe thesis statement takes a clear position and body paragraphs also include great supporting ideas that help your main point pop out. But I don't think there are counter arguments in third body paragraph. You show connectors, noun clauses, and abverbial clauses quite well. Further, conclusion rephrases your point well enough.
When I was in elementary school, kids used to download music from a website and sent to their friends over. Nowadays, you got to put lot of time and efforts fining the website. Downloading music or movies from the Internet for free is an illegal act but this issue has been very controversial. There are various opinions insisted from different kinds of people. However I believe the magnitude of intellectual properties protection should be limited for following reasons; means to spread a culture, share with neglected people and enjoy together.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, sharing those contents files on Internet can be actually a way to spread and advertise a different culture. Contents imports and exports is an official means to propagate unfamiliar culture to other countries. Nevertheless, some illegal downloading has greater effects. For instance, the biggest reason why K-wave got so popularized in some continents is because of the clips that were uploaded in the Internet. It sounds awkward though intellectual piracy has attracted more people to the Korean music or dramas which led to the huge K-wave industry.
When we talk about intellectual properties, the essence of the discussion is whether we should pay some kind of compensation for the use. If we consider the marginalized people, however, downloading music, movies or dramas should be freely done. There are numbers of people who cannot afford money or time to officially enjoy those contents but that should not be accepted as they don’t have rights to watch and listen. For the elders, poor, cultural backwater people, intellectual properties such as music or movies should be learned easily through the Internet.
Last but not least, over protection of the intellectual properties may lead to lack of enjoying the contents especially the music. There were many instances that people had absurd experiences related to the illegal use of music. For example, a mother uploaded a video of her son dancing to a song in Youtube but the original singer reported to make her put down the video. The reason was because she used the music without consent. Music exists to be heard and enjoyed but if it’s forbidden like this instance, I am doubtful about the meaning of its existence.
In conclusion, even though it is significant to protect creators’ creativity and their intellectual properties, we should also be considerate of those who enjoy the contents. I think all those intellectual properties including visual, sound, written or any kinds of contents are there to be shared and amused all together. If only certain designated people who are blessed to see, hear, read and feel those new and creative work, wouldn’t it be unfair?