Research paper rhetorical situation 25 july 2012


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Research paper rhetorical situation 25 july 2012

  1. 1. Lambert 1(Robert) Curtis LambertEnglish 101Professor Bolton25 July 2012 Rhetorical Situation Analysis Purpose: I chose to write my research paper, “The Maligning of Media Piracy,” based onmy text analysis essay, “The Persistent Piracy Plethora.” The subject of the text analysis essaywas Lawrence Lessig’s, “Some Like it Hot,” found on pages 88 through 92 in The Norton FieldGuide for Writing with Readings and Handbook. My intent with this research paper was toexpand the reader’s thinking on how we have become so complacent with the advent of newmedia technology, and the pirating of artist’s works that always accompanies new technology,especially new forms of media. The research paper was written to inform and clarify howimportant it is for the consumer to be aware of the part they play in media piracy, through Peer-2-Peer file sharing, as well as illegal downloading of movies, music, and television shows, evenif not for monetary gain. My purpose was to offer the argument that we can’t have it both ways;we can’t say “be patient, new laws take time,” and then say it is against the law to downloadmusic and moves we have not paid for. I hope to prove that time does not have to be the enemyof new and emerging forms of media, especially where piracy of their work is concerned. Genre: My research paper was written as a counter-argument; opposing the belief bymany in the judiciary, that a sense of urgency is unnecessary when dealing with the impact ofmedia piracy on the economy and the livelihood of the artists whose work is being reproducedwithout compensation. I wanted to present the information as informative, and well researched,
  2. 2. Lambert 2but offering the opinion that a sense of urgency on this topic is not over-blown. It was intendedto be a counterargument in the presentation. Audience: The audience for this essay would be people in the media industry or thoseinterested in how the laws surrounding Peer-2-Peer file sharing are evolving. Stance: I personally have a vested interest in this topic since I am a member of the[combined] film/television actor’s union: SAG/AFTRA. This topic of media piracy and how togarner appropriate residuals to actors, and all other production staff that are owed monies, hasbeen the hot button issue for decades, beginning with the invention of the VHS tape. I want tomake sure my rights, and those of my peers, are protected in a timely manner to the best of thelaws ability to do so. I am aware that my stance on this subject is biased at its core, however, itwas my desire to present both sides of the argument fairly, without compromising my ownopinion of the urgency needed to address outdated and stagnate laws on the subject. Media/Design: I did my very best to write an essay free of error, both grammatically andin content. I have read, re-read, and re-read again trying to clear up any misunderstanding or overuse of verbiage and errors, as well as correct MLA formatting of all cited works. I know it is notperfect, but I am pleased with the end result as it stands now. I would accompany my essay witha works cited area to give applicable credit to the authors of all researched and referencedmaterials, in addition to a Power Point presentation for public discussion. Research: The research component, although thorough, did not alter my opinion on thesubject in any way. In fact, Julian Sanchez, along with the testimony before The Subcommitteeon Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary House ofRepresentatives of the 109th Congress, 1st Session shocked me with their casual approach andcontinual dissention on any decision and urgency needed to update the current media piracy
  3. 3. Lambert 3laws. It is my belief that the naysayers [Sanchez and the Subcommittee Judiciary, among others]would have a very different opinion if the copyright infringements were directly affecting them. .