Illegally downloading copyrighted material

Table of Contents Introduction Moral Justification for Sharing Media content Unjust Pricing File Sharing Opportunities Conclusion References Footnotes Introduction Globally, millions of people engage in some form of illegal downloading of copyrighted material. This practice continues unabated, despite the understanding that the act of downloading copyrighted internet content is illegal.1 The big companies that engage in the production and sale of these internet contents are unhappy with such developments because they fear an erosion of their profitability.2Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Illegally downloading copyrighted material specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Policy makers also support the opinion of such companies because they strive to protect intellectual property by preventing the illegal reproduction of copyrighted work.3 However, the legal argument surrounding the download of copyrighted materials o utline one understanding of the entire debate regarding the subject because some people believe this legal understanding should also be subject to an ethical and moral understanding of the issue.4 This paper focuses on the moral understanding of illegally downloading copyrighted material by questioning the moral justification for criminalizing the practice. The utilitarianism concept informs the main argument of this paper because this document affirms that more societal benefits (as opposed to negative repercussions) may manifest if the government allows the downloading of copyrighted material. Moreover, this paper shows that many economic opportunities remain unexploited by disallowing the downloading of copyrighted material. This way, big film and music companies lose a lot of money by failing to adapt to the emerging trends of the digital file sharing market. Comprehensively, this paper demonstrates that downloading copyrighted material should be decriminalized. Moral Justificat ion for Sharing Media content One reason that motivates people to download copyrighted material from the internet is the lack of a moral justification to prevent this practice.5 Indeed, even though the law criminalizes the illegal downloading of copyrighted material, the act is not morally wrong. These sentiments replicate around the world because many people are now starting to question the moral justification for prohibiting internet downloads.6 Some researchers say many young people question the moral justification for preventing file sharing because internet downloads outline a common form of file sharing.7 For example, if an artist produces a song and wants to share it with the rest of the world, he would upload it on YouTube.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More People would then download the song and share it with other people. Regardless of existing laws, many people believe there is no immorality committed by sharing music or video files this way.8 A pivotal issue in this argument is the fair use policy, which justifies the use of file sharing. For example, if someone borrows a published book from a classmate, the government should not prosecute the lender for helping the friend. Such an act would contradict the principle of fair use. However, the concepts of â€Å"borrowing† and â€Å"keeping† suffice in this explanation. Their difference rests on a mere technicality, which centers on gaining access to the reading material. For example, there is no difference between having the book in one’s house and gaining access to the material through a friend, or via the internet. So long as a person can gain access to the material in both contexts, there is no difference between â€Å"borrowing† and â€Å"keeping†.9 Still, a critic may argue that sharing a file with a friend is very different from reproducing the material and sharing i t with a group of strangers. However, there is no moral justification for terming such a file-sharing avenue as illegal, while YouTube allows people to upload copyrighted digital contents for strangers to gain access (freely). It is therefore unjust to consider file sharing via YouTube as legal, while file sharing through other avenues remain illegal. Unjust Pricing Another compelling argument regarding the illegal downloading of copyrighted material comes from the moral arguments surrounding the unequal economic potential of different societies. Around the world, retailers often price their goods according to the economic potential of their markets.10 Ordinarily, retailers charge high prices for high potential markets, and low prices for markets with low economic potential. This has been the logic surrounding most pricing strategies. However, regardless of the economic potential for different markets, the prices for online copyrighted materials are often standardized.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Illegally downloading copyrighted material specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This unfair pricing policy therefore prevents poor people from using â€Å"expensive† online contents, while wealthier societies manage to pay the cost of purchasing the same contents. This inequality is unjust. A previous discussion with Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, acknowledged this imbalance when he implied that it was â€Å"okay† for poor societies to download their softwares (illegally).11 Relative to this statement Gates said, â€Å"As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They will somehow get addicted, and then we will somehow figure out how to collect, sometime in the next decade.†12 Through this assertion, it is correct to say that preventing the illegal downloading of copyrighted material in poor societies create an unjust market for online content providers a nd their customers. File Sharing Opportunities Big media companies that are involved in the production and distribution of media content fail to realize the immense business opportunities that emerge from internet downloads and file sharing. Indeed, just like the opposition to video recorders from the movie industry (two decades ago), media companies do not realize the potential that exists by allowing people to download and share files. For example, file sharing gives the opportunity for upcoming artists and film producers to display their materials in avenues that they would not have had before. For example, film and music companies charge a high fee for producing and distributing media content. To some artists, such fees are prohibitive to their quest to gain access to established media distribution channels. The internet however gives them a new opportunity to present their work without paying such prohibitive fees. They therefore gain access to a global audience that would othe rwise be out-of-reach. In fact, most upcoming musicians and film producers would not vehemently oppose the illegal download of their work because they do not enjoy a huge public audience.13 Multiple reproductions of their work would only do more good than harm because it would give them the publicity that they desperately need.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Lastly, there exists some untruthfulness from the assumption that illegal downloads can â€Å"kill† the film, gaming, and music industries. In fact, on the contrary, allowing illegal downloads would improve these industries. Recent surveys showed that about 95% of all music downloads were illegal.14 Yet, the digital music business grew by more than 25% in a consecutive three years. The contradictions of these statistics show that the presence of music downloads do not necessarily mean that it hurts sales, or hinders the growth of the industry. Instead, internet downloads and the subsequent file sharing process increases the market for media content. Conclusion Comprehensively, file sharing has done more good than harm to the society. Indeed, file sharing has opened an avenue for people to enjoy digital content that they would otherwise have not afforded. Similarly, upcoming gamers, musicians, and film producers have found an opportunity to display their materials to the publi c, without having to experience the burden of paying a lot of money for mainstream distribution. Established artists still benefit from the online frenzy that online file sharing creates because they benefit from increased touring and more publicity. In fact, the only reason established musicians do not fully benefit from online file sharing is because the industry has failed to adapt properly to the phenomenon. Therefore, banning illegal downloads will not work in present-day liberalized society because the provision is unfair, inconsistent, and irrational for the society. References Cavalier, Robert. The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives. New York: SUNY Press, 2005. Dhillon, Kamal. â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal.† Winnipeg Free Press. Last modified February 13, 2010. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.html Riley, Gail. Internet Piracy. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2010. Smith, Robert. â€Å"How to morally justify illeg al downloading.† NBR. Last modified January 30, 2009. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/how-morally-justify-illegal-downloading-116305 Thurlow, Max. â€Å"Ethical Issues in Software Piracy.† E how. Last modified February 13, 2012. http://www.ehow.com/list_6669954_ethical-issues-software-piracy.html Footnotes 1 Robert Cavalier, The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), 44. 2 Robert Cavalier, The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), 44. 3 Robert Smith, â€Å"How to morally justify illegal downloading,† NBR, Last modified January 30, 2009, http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/how-morally-justify-illegal-downloading-116305 4 Robert Cavalier, The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), 44. 5 Kamal Dhillon, â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal,† Winnipeg Free Press, Last modified February 13, 2010, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.htm l 6 Robert Cavalier, The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), 44. 7 Kamal Dhillon, â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal,† Winnipeg Free Press, Last modified February 13, 2010, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.html 8 Kamal Dhillon, â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal,† Winnipeg Free Press, Last modified February 13, 2010, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.html 9 Kamal Dhillon, â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal,† Winnipeg Free Press, Last modified February 13, 2010, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.html 10 Max Thurlow, â€Å"Ethical Issues in Software Piracy,† E how, Last modified February 13, 2012, http://www.ehow.com/list_6669954_ethical-issues-software-piracy.html 11 Max Thurlow, â€Å"Ethical Issues in Software Piracy,† E how, Last modified February 13, 2012, http://www.ehow.com/list_6 669954_ethical-issues-software-piracy.html 12 Max Thurlow, â€Å"Ethical Issues in Software Piracy,† E how, Last modified February 13, 2012, http://www.ehow.com/list_6669954_ethical-issues-software-piracy.html 13 Gail Riley, Internet Piracy (New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2010), 62. 14 Kamal Dhillon, â€Å"Not wrong, just illegal,† Winnipeg Free Press, Last modified February 13, 2010, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/not-wrong-just-illegal-84292007.html This essay on Illegally downloading copyrighted material was written and submitted by user Jimena H. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Bystander Behaviour Research Paper

Bystander Behaviour Research Paper Free Online Research Papers This essay will give examples and discuss the factors which can affect bystander behaviour in various situations. Models explaining theories will be looked at along with various studies, as well as looking at the three social cognitive processes by Latane and Darley and explain how these were put together to propose a complex cognitive model. The essay will explain the Arousal cost reward model by Piliavin and Piliavin. After the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, bystander behaviour was first looked at by Latane and Darley in 1970. Kitty was repeatedly stabbed by a stalker on three separate attacks. During the first two attempts, voices and the sight of lights going on interrupted him and frightened him off but seeing as nobody was coming to her rescue, he went back the third time which consequently led to her death. During the police investigation it emerged that 38 of her neighbours had separately witnessed the attack and yet no-one had intervened or called the police. It was through kitty Genovese murder and early laboratory studies that led Latane and Darley to introduce the concept of unresponsive bystander and bystander apathy and according to Latane and Darley decision model, a bystander will pass through a logical series of steps before actually offering any help. Therefore a negative decision at any step will lead to non- intervention. The three social cognitive processes towards the behaviour of bystanders by Latane and Darley that were involved in the passive behaviour of bystanders and these are, Diffusion of responsibility is where there is a tendency that the individual will assume that someone else has taken control of the situation when in fact as a result no one actually does. Audience inhibition is where an individual is concerned with what others might think of them and not want to react to what may be a false alarm as they could feel embarrassed. Pluralistic ignorance which means that an individual will observe the behaviour from other onlookers and take his cue from their behaviour before actually helping and Latane and Darley put these ideas together to form a complex model and it was suggested that there were five steps necessary in order for an individual to take positive action. Step one is that an individual must notice that something is happening. A study by Darley and Batson (1973) is an example of this, whereby seminary students had to give a talk in a nearby building on the Good Samaritan. Each group were given different levels of urgency. Group one were told they had plenty of time to get to the other building, group two were told they had a few minutes but it is best to head over now whereas The third group was told they were already late. In an alleyway they passed a man slumped on the ground in pain. It was unclear whether the man was ill or drunk. 70% of students who believed they were ahead of schedule stopped to help the man, 45% of people who were on time stopped to help whereas only 10% of the students who believed they were late stopped to help. However many students actually stepped over the man needing help. It is thought that the students with more time took more notice of their surroundings whereas the students who believed they were late kept their heads down and noticed hardly anything of their surroundings. Step two of the cognitive model is do we interpret the situation as an emergency. Step three of the model is to take responsibility for helping. Step four refers to if a bystander decides to help and this will be influenced by how competent they feel. Step five will be to give the help needed provided the other four steps have been gone through first. Darley and Latane’s conclusions were expanded into a cost-reward arousal model by Piliavin et al in the early 1980’s. This model suggests that the potential rewards and costs of intervention and non-intervention are weighed up by the bystander. The cost-reward arousal model consists of two factors that are interdependent in order to explain whether or not a bystander will help. Arousal in response to the need of others is an emotional response which is distressing to the helper, thus motivating the helper to help in reducing their own distress. Cost-reward factor involves the bystander weighing up the situation in terms of costs and rewards to themselves. Costs and rewards may be seen in terms of those received for helping the victim , for example the amount of physical danger involved or fame and monetary rewards and as the costs for helping increase so does the probability of intervention. In conclusion this essay has shown that the cost of helping and not helping differ according to the type of help that is required, which could include personality of the bystander, the gender of either, and furthermore the bystander – victim relationship. Helping can be called altruism but only if the motive is to benefit the victim which is empathic concern. All human beings are capable of altruistic acts, and according to universal egoism, helping is always motivated by personal distress. Humans are capable of biological altruism whereby it is triggered within emergency situations, especially where their friends or relatives are concerned. Research Papers on Bystander Behaviour Research PaperThree Concepts of PsychodynamicIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalThe Fifth HorsemanEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenResearch Process Part OneBionic Assembly System: A New Concept of SelfThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseCapital PunishmentBringing Democracy to AfricaInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married Males