| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: General Forums :: Schooling Fish |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Grade My Homework | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| Kcow |
|
||
Registered Member #643
Joined: Tue Apr 10 2007, 04:44PMPosts: 1921 |
I like Metallica, but they are flaming retards when they open their mouth offstage | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| peacebypeice |
|
||
peacebypeice
Registered Member #925
Joined: Mon Nov 26 2007, 05:23AMPosts: 1452 |
you listen to horse...plz... | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Kcow |
|
||
|
Registered Member #643
Joined: Tue Apr 10 2007, 04:44PM Posts: 1921 |
peacebypeice wrote ...
you listen to horse...plz... |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Amped |
|
||
Hi
Registered Member #301
Joined: Thu Jun 15 2006, 01:55AMPosts: 888 |
kd. wrote ... Lost Profits: The Music Industry and Sound Piracy One of the most controversial modern debates lies in the topic of sound piracy, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, torrenting, and bootlegging. Ever since the birth of Napster (perhaps clarify what Napster is) in the late 1990’s (don't think there's an appostrophy here, i've always been confused on decade/year possesives though.), and the subsequent lawsuit by the deservingly-maligned and teary-eyed pussy (really? enjoy your teacher reading this) that is Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, the debate has raged on the legality, fairness, and copyright-infringing subject of music piracy. Websites, programs, and CPU hardware (see Amped's post)have all been means of continuing the battle for unfettered and free (or substantially cheaper) access to music. With the recent increase in the price of popular individual songs from the iTunes Store, what more appropriate and opportune time to propose this question: what measurements can accurately, and without any form of assumption, decipher the loss of profits, sales, employment, and tax dollars resulting from the multifarious types of sound piracy? (a QUESTION thesis? i don't know about it, but if you know it's okay.) Just in response to a few of KD's comments: 1. 1990's is correct. When pluralizing a group of years, an apostrophe is always used. Just an arbitrary grammatical rule. 2. This isn't high school anymore, dito's professors or TA's won't care if he says pussy, as long as it has rhetorical function (which it does). 3. An interrogative thesis is fine, IMO. Really depends on the writer. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Kcow |
|
||
|
Registered Member #643
Joined: Tue Apr 10 2007, 04:44PM Posts: 1921 |
I'd go with the MIT student | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kd. |
|
||
♥ (✿◠‿◠) ♥
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 08:51PMPosts: 3128 |
As would I: notice he did not discount anything I said, only clarified what I said I wasn't sure about. was dumb of me to say saying pussy was bad, though. def. rheotorical. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| b4ndito |
|
||
b4ndito
Registered Member #958
Joined: Fri Jan 04 2008, 06:59AMPosts: 3385 |
No one in their right mind is going to put that usage of "Pussy" on a final draft for a class assignment. I just do that on rough drafts to entertain myself. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kd. |
|
||
|
♥ (✿◠‿◠) ♥
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 08:51PM Posts: 3128 |
I think Amped did have a point, though; it's definitely got -some- rhetorical usage, if that's something. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Zero |
|
||
I want to fuck your hand.
Registered Member #571
Joined: Thu Feb 15 2007, 09:59PMPosts: 2809 |
I think your first sentence is a bit long. You want to keep it short and hook, and it didn't hook me. Basically spelled out too much in the first sentence. gotta draw me in in the first paragraph, this feels more like a second paragraph. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| b4ndito |
|
||
|
b4ndito
Registered Member #958
Joined: Fri Jan 04 2008, 06:59AM Posts: 3385 |
Zero wrote ... I think your first sentence is a bit long. You want to keep it short and hook, and it didn't hook me. Basically spelled out too much in the first sentence. gotta draw me in in the first paragraph, this feels more like a second paragraph. I'm sorry, my intended audience wasn't a gang of fifth graders who didn't take their Ritalin before class. One of the most controversial modern debates lies in the topic of sound piracy, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, torrenting, and bootlegging. Ever since the birth of Napster, the first mainstream file sharing program in the late 1990’s, and the subsequent lawsuit by the much maligned Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, the debate has raged on the legality, fairness, and copyright-infringing subject of music piracy. Peer-to-peer file sharing programs took over after Napster’s fall; Limewire became the next bastion of uncontrolled access to free music and videos. Torrenting and private-trackers came more recently, allowing the quickest and most convenient way to pirate huge amounts of songs, albums, and discographies simultaneously. Record companies have fought back by allowing a person to legally buy music downloads from programs like iTunes, at a disputably unfair price. Websites, programs, and computer hardware have all been means of continuing the battle for unfettered and free (or substantially cheaper) access to music. With the recent increase in the price of popular individual songs from the iTunes Store, what more appropriate and opportune time to propose this idea to the Fraser Institute: an accurate measurement of the loss of profits, sales, employment, and tax dollars resulting from the differing types of sound piracy. The need for accurate measurement of the effects of music piracy is partially due to the enormous sums of money that are considered lost because of it. In a 2007 study, the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) found that “as a consequence of global and U.S. based piracy of sound recordings, the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in output annually.” The fallacy that this study incurs, however, is that they attribute any pirated song, album, or music video as a lost sale. Ostensibly, the logic behind that reasoning is justified; yet, not all pirated music therefore goes unsold. According to ARS Technica’s website, “Three out of four [peer to peer] users admitted to purchasing music after downloading it online, with 21 percent of [peer to peer] users saying that they have bought tracks they have also downloaded on more than 10 occasions.” This argument brings a new quandary: is there a viable means to determine a constant percentage or ratio of pirated music to the subsequent purchase of the same music? If a study wishes to fully determine the accurate losses resulting from sound piracy, a new schematic is needed to determine this ratio. If the Fraser Institute could measure this constant value, it could accurately decipher whether sound piracy is truly a detriment to the economy. This is not the only important reason for precise measurements of sound piracy; there are also millions of tax dollars that are presumably lost annually due to piracy. The IPI’s study also states findings that “As a consequence of piracy, U.S. federal, state and local governments lose a minimum of $422 million in tax revenues annually. Of this amount, $291 million represents lost personal income taxes while $131 million is lost corporate income and production taxes.” This figure gives a broad and understandable depiction of the need for measurement of sound piracy; every year, over $400 million in taxes alone are believed lost from illegally obtained files. This figure is correlated with a massive depletion of jobs spiraling through the entire cycle of music production: recording, producing, manufacturing, marketing, transportation, and retail. This issue affects millions of people worldwide; in the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 71,060 jobs are not created or lost entirely because of sound piracy. However, the same fallacy distorting lost sales information faces this issue as well. The jobs are not necessarily lost; some are just relocated, re-evaluated, or re-engineered. It is fair to argue that the need for programmers, moderators, lawyers, and web masters is increasing due to the rising trend in peer to peer websites, such as “The Pirate Bay” and “Isohunt”. Also, the large web traffic visiting these sites makes them perfect candidates for advertisements, much like “Facebook” or “MySpace”; the value of these websites is obscene due to their popularity and rate of return visits. I propose the Fraser Institute evaluate and quantify the real effects of sound piracy on the economy; it is too broad to say that so many jobs are lost, when they are being created more efficiently on the other end. This issue affects more than just the countless workers and jobs that are considered lost by the IPI’s study – it also plays a prodigious role for the artists and musicians themselves. It may seem hard to comprehend how artists may make money if their work is being pirated in mass quantities, but peer to peer sharing is one of the best forms of advertisement. For example, when the band Radiohead debuted their album “Kid A” in October, 2000, many were surprised when it reached number one on the Billboard charts. Radiohead is a band with distinct electronic, ambient, and jazz influences; it was shockingly different than any previous number one album. Kid A’s popularity is attributed to the full album’s free release on peer to peer sites; it was made available three months before the album hit the shelves, and this exposure led an underground band to the top of the charts. Had the music not been available via Napster and other such sites, it is unlikely the CD would have sold 210,000 copies in its first week. It seems surreal, but perhaps sound piracy is not quite the problem it is made out to be by the IPI. The possibility that peer to peer file sharing could increase sales of artists’ music is not computed in the IPI’s study. Radiohead’s story alone merits a better, more meticulous measurement by the Fraser Institute. By these arguments, it is rational to propose a greater study by the Fraser Institute into the effects of sound piracy on the economy. There can be no accurate measurement of sales loss without first identifying an invariable ratio of pirated music to purchased music, because it is unfair to assume that people who pirate music do not ever purchase it later than or prior to the piracy. Also, it is underhanded and unreasonable to bluntly state that sound piracy results for the loss of more than 70,000 jobs; it is fair to argue that piracy has created jobs to support itself, and those must be measured also. This can be done by researching the employment, advertisement, and visitors list of all the private-trackers, torrent sites, and peer to peer programs. There is a misconceived notion that sound piracy steals money from the hardworking artists and record labels that produce the music. It is also believed that it is a drain on the economy, and several studies have shown it as a black hole of wealth and commerce. These studies have drawn nothing but inconclusive data, however; the standards by which they are measured are incomplete and biased. If the Fraser Institute manages to accurately measure the true effects of sound piracy on the economy, it is easy to believe that the results would tell a different story than the ones currently taken as canon. I finished it at like 2 a.m. last night. It's decent, I think. Edited Thu Apr 16 2009, 02:10PM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|