Over the years, pirating music has become more popular. At the same time, it has become a huge problem – or has it? According to Gizmodo’s Eliot Van Buskirk, an interview with Sam Tarantino of Grooveshark (a free music streaming site), pirating music is the way to go. Both Van Buskirk and Tarantino use casual diction to accommodate their readers. However, the interview with Sam Tarantino is more closely analyzed over the writing of Eliot Von Buskirk. In the beginning of the interview, Tarantino lists his first reason that music sharing and downloading should be free as, “Record Labels want too much money” (Tarantino 12). He then explains that labels need to focus on making money at live events instead of worrying about how much money they are making by selling their music online. However, the explanations and reasoning comes to an abrupt end being that Tarantino does not give any examples as to why he believes this. On the other hand, Tarantino also makes the argument that “musicians already get paid more by touring anyway” (Tarantino 12). He justifies this by giving the example using internationally known Justin Bieber’s new hit single “Boyfriend”. Specifically, Tarantino illustrates the difference in income when it comes to downloading music and touring. He shows that the money that is made when consumers download is split into three – once so that the a large chunk of the profit goes to the record label, another time so that the selling site, such as iTunes, gets their profit, and lastly, so that the final, and less meaty bit of profit goes to the actual artist himself. He goes on to explain that when artists go on tour, all of the money made from tickets to merchandise goes to them. By doing this, he pinpoints the gumption of the readers to understand his reasoning. Tarantino’s use of this example is contributory in allowing the readers to see not only the music streamers side, but also the musician’s side of the issue, which plays a huge part in deciding whether or not downloading and sharing music should be free. In another article (or blog), Jeff Balke examines reasoning for downloading music. One of the more interesting examples included, “Art should be free.” The writer of this reason, credited as “Figures”, says that “The real artists are there for the art not the money, you want the money? you’re probably not a real artist, I’m not paying!” “Figures,” uses what he or she feels as common sense to get readers to agree. It is implied that the paying for music online is absurd in a sense, taken from the writer’s language and use of punctuation. The blogger fails to give any example to make his statement true, which could raise the argument of just that. The two connect in a sense that they both the consumer’s point of view is more important than record labels or artists.
Several people in the world feel that music should be free to download. Among these people include blogger Jeff Balke. In fact, in response to the post written by “Figures,” Balke fires that “music is as much skill as it is art.” To justify this, he makes the statement that to acquire skill, practice is required, but at the same time it is necessary to be financially okay. Concurrently, this backfires as he makes the assumption that “people who think all art should be free have jobs and make money and don’t have to worry about where their next check is coming from.” Nevertheless, he quickly comes back to say that “not all are that way,” saving himself from arguments. The diction of the entire blog is informally casual in all ways. It is relevant because it gives a consumer’s point of view of the idea that pirating music is wrong. Switching from a blogger to the United States Department of Justice, it is made clear that they are against acts of piracy when they go on to explain why they protect trademarks, etc., and the penalties of not conforming to laws pertaining to intellectual property and copyright. The department claims that the enforcement of copyrighting protects all involved, including consumers, the market, consumers, and market holders. For example, the department explains that by protecting the laws, consumers will be protected of being prosecuted as frauds. It could be argued, however, that the government is attempting to find a way to take money from the states In another example, the department maintains that when laws of copyright and piracy are protected, the safety of “non-purchasing” users is also protected. It gives the specific illustration of different instances in which consumer’s are victims of counterfeit. A reader who believes that music should be downloaded for free could easily question the relevancy of this example. This is because the clarity of this example does not completely exist, as it does not clearly explain the reasons that consumer’s are victims of counterfeit in daily life. If the two authors were face to face, they would probably agree wholly with each other’s arguments. They would go discuss the ways to make it clearer to readers exactly why conforming to the laws of copyright and piracy is important, and they would converse over how to make it clear how piracy affects the entire world.
Stopping piracy has become a huge controversy in the music industry. In late 2011, a bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith to put online piracy to a halt. This bill is called the Stop Online Piracy act, and is better known as SOPA. The act would serve the purpose of doing just what the title says, that is, stop online piracy. In an article written by Smith himself, it is explained why a law against online piracy is needed in the United States. The article immediately becomes irrelevant, being that no reason is given as to why exactly a law is needed. However, Smith clarifies misleading information about the bill, and tells why it is harmless. Much like the Department of Justice, Smith broaches that the act “protect s consumers and innovators by targeting foreign websites that traffic in stolen or counterfeit products, everything from movies to medicine to baby food” (Smith, 1). He attempts to clear up that the “blackouts” that occurred during the week of the bill’s hearing were not necessary, as the bill does not even affect the websites (such as Wikipedia) that participated in the blackout. Conforming to the readers against his bill, Smith admits that the bill is not quite ready just yet, and still needs improvement. He does in hopes to identify with the sensibility of those readers. Arguments about this article could be simply raised by a reader who is against the passing of the bill. Opposite to the beliefs of Smith, an article from the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation presents reasons why SOPA is wrong. The organization begins the article by calling the bill “dangerous” to conform to the rationale of its readers. The article urges readers to call their Washington Representative to help her to understand why she should be against the bill, too. Following closely behind is a list of reasons why the organization believes that SOPA is bad. This is done in an effective way that addresses the judgment of readers, and allows them to completely understand the organization’s way of thinking. The foundation uses formal diction, with simple wording to confirm that all readers understand. If the two were to speak face to face, they would clash, being that their beliefs are the complete opposite. Not to mention, the Electronic Frontier Foundation completely bashes the idea of SOPA in general.
The controversy over music piracy will not come to an end, or at least not any time soon. There are millions in the world who believe that piracy is a good thing, beneficial to both producer and consumer, and there are tons of others who believe just the opposite. It is unknown what is to become of the world with pirating laws and how officials will stop them. It is however, guaranteed that it will be attempted, as it already has been. Based on the articles, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the controversy will remain for a long time, all the while affecting producers and consumers everywhere.