Just like Alvin Toffler said, the world has entered The Third Wave, which is in other words, the Information Age. The Information Age has introduced the human race to its second renaissance, where creative minds can blossom their imaginations. Those brilliant souls such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc have brought remarkable innovations and ideas to this world rather than paintings and sculptures. However, our culture has not come to terms with this intangible intellectual property. Amid countless disputes and debates surrounding the issue of protecting intellectual property, I would like to take the side of the resistance.
To begin with, we must take a look at the definition of monopoly in order to understand why getting access to intellectual property via illegitimate route is not a theft. Monopoly is a market where a single supplier determines the price of a particular commodity. In this unfair market where the law of supply & demand is nullified, the consumers are completely helpless. Customers do not have any choice but to succumb to the overpriced product. For example, Microsoft, a dominant software company that controls 95% of its kind suggests its software MS Windows Home Premium for 300 dollars. In the face of absurd price, consumers have the right not to get ripped off.
Also, Robin Hood, the righteous and heroic outlaw might show us some light to this puzzling matter. Robin Hood is known for "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to justify robbery. Clearly, no matter how innocent his intention was, there just cannot be a compromise or negotiation over theft. Then here is the question. Are those who benefited from Robin Hood responsible for the theft too? Is picking up bread crumbs on the floor a robbery? Bram Cohen, an American programmer invented a program called Torrent. Nowadays, Torrent has opened up the new world of information for each and every one of us. Is being introduced to a more effective means of accessing information a crime? Remember, it is Robin Hood to be blamed, not the innocent public.
21st century is by all means a meritocratic society. Regardless of sex, age, and race, meritocratic society is where competent ones can get to the top. This system can give us an answer to the concept of intellectual property. Many artists, especially those in music industries complain about the illegal download of their work. They say they are deprived of their one and only source of income. However, in the perspective of meritocracy, the root of the problem actually lies within the artists themselves. Rather than blaming fans for not buying their albums, they must ask themselves if they have created an album worth the price. Truth to be told, no one wants to pay 10 dollars for poor quality music just as no one wants to pay for 10 dollars for Mentos. Therefore, in meritocratic society, it is talent, not the thieves that are troubling the intellectual property.
In conclusion, I strongly support the idea of sharing intellectual property for three reasons. First, in case of monopoly, consumers have the right to resist to fairness. Second, it is the Robin Hood, not the innocent people to be blamed. Finally, in meritocratic society, it is the talent not the thieves to be blamed.
From: 201301818 Yoon-Shik Shin
ReplyDeleteTo: Byung-Wook Kim
Your points were very interesting in that although it was the opposite from my claims, they were valid and the supporting arguments were solid. I can relate because when I work with digital illustrators, the industry standard is the Adobe illustrator program; and its price is about 300$ per year.
Your introduction provided a clear view about your argument; which was nice. However I am unsure if the use of the personal pronoun "I" is okay. (It's just something I was always advised against during my high-school education)
Your point seemed more valid mainly because the examples you provided clearly supported your thesis. If there was one point I would point out, it would be about the paragraph that discusses the musicians in the twenty-first century. Even talented musicians these days cannot earn money through actually selling their music due to how the distribution chain is structured in Korea; so they usually resort to performing at events, concerts, or college festivals to earn money. Yet I strongly agree with the fact that it is necessary for some artists to improve the quality of their music.
Your conclusion clearly stated the points you covered throughout your entire essay, which was really good, but I feel like it would have more impact if you made a more effective ending.
Thanks for sharing your interesting views on the topic of intellectual property.
From Yooli
ReplyDelete1. Basically, you are against the idea of protecting intellectual properties by copyright law. Your supported your opinion by using the concept of monopoly, robin hood, meritocratic society.
2. In overall, I really enjoyed reading your essay, and was persuaded by it. The point I most liked is that you used keywords in your main ideas. By using simple but strong keywords, the writing became clearer and more logical. Also, I think your introduction was really intriguing.
Thank your for your writing!:)