The document is a rhetorical analysis by Curtis Lambert of an essay he wrote for his English 101 class. The purpose of Lambert's essay was to argue against the complacency around media piracy enabled by new technologies and to disagree with an article by Lawrence Lessig that argues changes take time. Lambert aimed to publish his essay in a media or industry magazine to present his opinion that urgency is needed on protecting artist rights. The intended audience is those in the media industry interested in laws around file sharing. Lambert has a personal stake in the issue as a member of a film/TV actors union concerned with residuals. He researched an article by Julian Sanchez that did not change his view that the issue requires urgency.

1. Lambert 1
(Robert) Curtis Lambert
English 101
Professor Bolton
25 June 2012
Rhetorical Situation Analysis
Purpose: I chose to write my second essay, a text analysis, based on an essay by
Lawrence Lessig, “Some Like it Hot,” found on pages 88 through 92 in The Norton Field Guide
for Writing with Readings and Handbook. My intent in this essay, “The Persistent Piracy
Plethora or What’s Wrong with Downloading Movies and Music for Free?” was to expand the
reader’s thinking on how we have become so complacent with the advent of new media
technology and the pirating of artist’s works that always accompanies new technology,
especially new forms of media. The author of the article continues to talk out of both sides of his
mouth, in my opinion, on this issue. He states repeatedly that we must protect the rights of the
artist, whose work is being stolen through media piracy, all the while telling us to calm down and
be patient. After all, major changes in legislation take time. My purpose was to offer the
argument that he can’t have it both ways, as well as offering a counter argument: time does not
have to be the enemy of new and emerging forms of media, where piracy of their work is
concerned.
Genre: I feel my essay would be best served in print, via a media based magazine, film or
television industry periodical, or newspaper. I wanted to present the information as informative,
but offering the opinion that a sense of urgency on this topic is not over-blown. It was
intentionally opinionated and intended to disagree with the author [Lessig}.

2. Lambert 2
Audience: The audience for this essay would be people in the media industry or those
interested 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 union: SAG/AFTRA. This topic of media piracy and how to
garner appropriate residuals to actors, and all other production staff that are owed monies, has
been the hot button issue for decades, beginning with the invention of the VHS tape. I want to
make sure my rights, and those of my peers, are protected in a timely manner to the best of the
laws ability to do so.
Media/Design: I did my very best to write an essay free of error, both grammatically and
in content. I have read, re-read, and re-read again trying to clear up any misunderstanding or over
use of verbiage and errors. I know it is not perfect, but I am pleased with the end result as it
stands now. I would accompany my essay with a works cited area to give applicable credit to the
author, Lawrence Lessig, as well as Julian Sanchez, the author of the article I used for my
research component, if my essay were to be published.
Research: The article I found in my research for my Text Analysis essay did not alter my
opinion on the subject in any way. In fact, Julian Sanchez shocked me with his casual approach
and how over-blown we [anyone owed royalties/residuals] have made it and that this argument
is something it should never have been: urgent! Mr. Sanchez would have a very different opinion
if he were in my shoes and there was money he was owed and the courts were dragging their feet
to pay him.
Research article by Julian Sanchez originally appeared:
Cato Institute Jan 17, 2012, n.pag.

3. Lambert 3
Copyright © 2012 Cato Institute. As it originally appeared in Cato Institute, a publication
of the Cato Institute. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. http://www.cato.org.