Illegally downloaded music is a highly debated topic. Some people view it as harmless because the people they steal from are already "rich" and will not miss a mere $10.00 from their pockets. Other people say that it is flat-out wrong to steal, which makes illegally downloading music wrong as well. While both sides have their own arguments, the best way to look at this situation is through ethics.
People who say that stealing music is okay need to put themselves into those "rich" music artist's shoes. For those artists, selling music is their livelihood. Sure, they can make money selling concert tickets and through other endorsements, but why should they be gypped out of their well-earned and well-deserved song and record sales? If a writer had their book illegally plastered onto the Internet for everyone to read for free, they would be furious. Musicians have every right to feel the same way.
The categorical imperative can also be used to analyze the effects of illegally downloading music. If everyone decided to download their music illegally, what would be the result? Some musicians might stop making music altogether. After all, if they cannot make a living off of their profession, what is the point? Sure, there will still be other musicians who produce music just for fun, but what kind of quality would that music have? Maybe some people would rather have all music be free. But they must also remember that a lot of lives would be negatively effected due to the collapse of the music industry.
For the people who say that stealing is stealing no matter what, they need look to at Sissela Bok's three-stop model for analyzing an ethical situation. Before they go off and start condemning people for their illegal downloading, they should consider if what those people are doing is really wrong. By consulting their conscience, seeking alternatives, and holding an imaginary ethical conversation with everyone involved in the situation, they may find that illegally downloading music is actually ethical.
An example of this would be if someone downloads an unreleased song by their favorite musician from a web site. Since the song is unreleased, there is no legitimate way to purchase it. So what should the person do? If their conscience says it is okay to download the song, they need to seek alternatives. Perhaps they could donate money to the musician or ask the musician themselves what they can do to help. They should also pretend that they are talking with the musician and try to look at the situation through their eyes. Would the musician be okay with the song being downloaded as long as they do not plan on releasing it in the future? If people are interested in downloading the song, should the musician release it as a single so that fans could purchase it legitimately? While the answers will vary, these steps should still be carried out before downloading any music illegally.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Advertisements
The world is full of advertisements. Newspapers, web sites,
television, and so many more mediums are constantly shoving ads into the faces
of their audience. Since I grew up being bombarded with ads, I have learned to
ignore them for the most part. However, advertisers have become more creative
in how and where they place their ads, so I am still being affected by them.
The advertisements that entice me the most are ones that deal with saving money. Since college students are known for being tight on money, college campuses are filled with ads about low prices or deals that save money for this particular target audience. I typically notice these kinds of money-saving ads when I am eating on the north side of campus. Since I do not like to spend too much over my meal plan equivalent of $4.70, I try to get the most bang for my buck. I came across an advertisement placed in front of the eateries at the Academic Forum that flaunted a sandwich wrap, a side item, and a drink for the price of a meal. This was great news for me since most individual sandwiches cost an entire meal by themselves. So I ended up getting myself a wrap meal and enjoyed every bite of it. I was happy to have found that ad since it benefited me.
Another ad that I came across came in the form of a slip of paper taped onto my dorm room door. The ad was about a baseball enthusiasts’ get-together that would be held later that night in the dorm. Since I am not a big fan of baseball, I decided to not attend. Although the ad got my attention because it encroached on my personal space, I had no desire to take action (unless you count my inaction as being an action.)
The Internet is another medium that I used. It is full of ads on every page, but those ads end up becoming noise. Even when ads are put onto things like videos that make you watch them until the real video begins, I simply open a new tab and search the web until I hear the ad is over. Sure, it is a nuisance, but I have grown used to this routine. If the ad's purpose was to waste my time, then it did its job.
Ads, like its audience, are constantly evolving with the creation of new mediums. Many of my experiences with ads occur when I'm on the north side of campus, in my dorm, or on the Internet. While I cannot completely avoid these ads, my actions determine the effectiveness of them. As with everything in life, the results can be either positive or negative. Since ads will be with us until the end of time, it is important for everyone to create their own way of dealing with ads before they become overwhelmed.
The advertisements that entice me the most are ones that deal with saving money. Since college students are known for being tight on money, college campuses are filled with ads about low prices or deals that save money for this particular target audience. I typically notice these kinds of money-saving ads when I am eating on the north side of campus. Since I do not like to spend too much over my meal plan equivalent of $4.70, I try to get the most bang for my buck. I came across an advertisement placed in front of the eateries at the Academic Forum that flaunted a sandwich wrap, a side item, and a drink for the price of a meal. This was great news for me since most individual sandwiches cost an entire meal by themselves. So I ended up getting myself a wrap meal and enjoyed every bite of it. I was happy to have found that ad since it benefited me.
Another ad that I came across came in the form of a slip of paper taped onto my dorm room door. The ad was about a baseball enthusiasts’ get-together that would be held later that night in the dorm. Since I am not a big fan of baseball, I decided to not attend. Although the ad got my attention because it encroached on my personal space, I had no desire to take action (unless you count my inaction as being an action.)
The Internet is another medium that I used. It is full of ads on every page, but those ads end up becoming noise. Even when ads are put onto things like videos that make you watch them until the real video begins, I simply open a new tab and search the web until I hear the ad is over. Sure, it is a nuisance, but I have grown used to this routine. If the ad's purpose was to waste my time, then it did its job.
Ads, like its audience, are constantly evolving with the creation of new mediums. Many of my experiences with ads occur when I'm on the north side of campus, in my dorm, or on the Internet. While I cannot completely avoid these ads, my actions determine the effectiveness of them. As with everything in life, the results can be either positive or negative. Since ads will be with us until the end of time, it is important for everyone to create their own way of dealing with ads before they become overwhelmed.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Prevention
Prevention is a magazine intended for an older female audience. Its goal is to provide women aged thirty and up with vital information that helps them to prevent diseases and lead healthy lives. Women know that Prevention is a magazine for them because of the colors, advertisements, and articles displayed throughout the publication.
Prevention uses "girly" colors like pink and purple on its March 2012 front cover to attract female eyes. Inside the magazine, there are colorful images with white backgrounds to bring out a light and happy feel; light colors typically represent feminine qualities, while dark colors are harsher and subsequently seen as masculine. The plain backgrounds allow the pictures to catch the reader's attention, which is especially important for the advertisements.
The advertisements in Prevention focus on healthy eating, personal hygiene products, and medications. Since many older women are "dieting," its ads present low-calorie snacks, recipes with fruits and vegetables, and sugar free sweets. Products like Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair, Maybelline Instant Age Rewind The Eraser Treatment Makeup, and Poise Hourglass pads are geared towards aging women because men usually aren't worried about looking younger or using tampons. Medications like Aleve, Restasis, and MiraLAX are meant to help women who are dealing with the aches and pains of growing old.
Prevention contains articles that are geared towards older females as well. One article talks about how women's shoes can make them fat. Another article talks about Michelle Obama and her ability to spend time taking care of herself while she also raises a family and performs duties as the First Lady. There's even an advertorial of makeup products that tricks the reader into thinking that they're reading an article about makeup, when in reality they're just falling into the advertiser's hands. The question and answer section that deals with sexual health definitely represents women, especially the one story about buying vibrators.
Prevention has an audience of over 9 million readers, 86% of them being women. Their median age is 56 years old, which proves that their targeted demographic is older women. 61% of the women are married which is not too surprising; most women who plan on getting married do so by the age of fifty. Prevention does a good job of using signaling to appeal to its target audience.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Whitney Houston
Whitney Houston's death has been felt all across the Internet. Everyone seems to be tweeting, blogging, and commenting on the singer's passing. When I looked to CNN and Al Jazeera for their stories on the subject, I found them to be quite different from each other.
CNN's article focused on Houston's rise to fame, talking about her childhood and being signed by Clive Davis at the age of twenty. The article also talks about her hit songs, her movie career, and her decline in the music world as the result of drug abuse.
Al Jazeera's story covered the days leading up to her death. The article quotes people saying that Houston's group were loud partiers at the Beverly Hilton Hotel where the Grammys were being held on Sunday. The article doesn't even mention specific songs that Houston sang. Instead, the writers centered on Houston's struggle with drugs and her would-be comeback had it not been for weak live performances and cancelled shows.
Interestingly, both articles include videos at the top of their pages. CNN's video shows a phone interview with Simon Cowell. Cowell talks to Piers Morgan of Piers Morgan Tonight about his complete shock over Houston's death and says that she was one of the best performers ever. Cowell also says that Houston was a delight on The X-Factor back in 2009 when she performed a song off her latest album. The video doesn't add much to the written article, and even seems a bit unrelated since the video feels more focused on Simon Cowell's opinion than Houston herself. It does make sense for CNN to use its own show in the video, but they lost out on a chance for synergy since Simon Cowell isn't associated with the network. Perhaps somebody associated with Time Warner would have made more sense.
The Al Jazeera video plays clips from various Whitney Houston music videos. There is a voice over by Charles Stratford of Al Jazeera who's explaining Houston's popularity and highly publicized marriage with Bobby Brown and her addiction to drugs. I liked this video over the CNN one since it actually showed Houston's singing talent and was centered on her instead of an irrelevant celebrity.
Both CNN and Al Jazeera started their written articles by stating where and when Houston died. They also covered much of the same topics, including Houston's problem with drugs and attempt at a comeback in 2009. They also include quotes, but CNN quotes music celebrities while Al Jazeera quotes their correspondent and an entertainment journalist. I found it fitting that CNN and Al Jazeera reported without having any bias, since there was no reason to add any politics or network propaganda while reporting about the death of a musician.
No matter who covers the story, the death of Whitney Houston resonates with everyone.
Links
CNN article
Al Jazeera article
CNN's article focused on Houston's rise to fame, talking about her childhood and being signed by Clive Davis at the age of twenty. The article also talks about her hit songs, her movie career, and her decline in the music world as the result of drug abuse.
Al Jazeera's story covered the days leading up to her death. The article quotes people saying that Houston's group were loud partiers at the Beverly Hilton Hotel where the Grammys were being held on Sunday. The article doesn't even mention specific songs that Houston sang. Instead, the writers centered on Houston's struggle with drugs and her would-be comeback had it not been for weak live performances and cancelled shows.
Interestingly, both articles include videos at the top of their pages. CNN's video shows a phone interview with Simon Cowell. Cowell talks to Piers Morgan of Piers Morgan Tonight about his complete shock over Houston's death and says that she was one of the best performers ever. Cowell also says that Houston was a delight on The X-Factor back in 2009 when she performed a song off her latest album. The video doesn't add much to the written article, and even seems a bit unrelated since the video feels more focused on Simon Cowell's opinion than Houston herself. It does make sense for CNN to use its own show in the video, but they lost out on a chance for synergy since Simon Cowell isn't associated with the network. Perhaps somebody associated with Time Warner would have made more sense.
The Al Jazeera video plays clips from various Whitney Houston music videos. There is a voice over by Charles Stratford of Al Jazeera who's explaining Houston's popularity and highly publicized marriage with Bobby Brown and her addiction to drugs. I liked this video over the CNN one since it actually showed Houston's singing talent and was centered on her instead of an irrelevant celebrity.
Both CNN and Al Jazeera started their written articles by stating where and when Houston died. They also covered much of the same topics, including Houston's problem with drugs and attempt at a comeback in 2009. They also include quotes, but CNN quotes music celebrities while Al Jazeera quotes their correspondent and an entertainment journalist. I found it fitting that CNN and Al Jazeera reported without having any bias, since there was no reason to add any politics or network propaganda while reporting about the death of a musician.
No matter who covers the story, the death of Whitney Houston resonates with everyone.
Links
CNN article
Al Jazeera article
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Power Rangers
My favorite television show is Power Rangers. Yes, I'm talking about those superheroes in spandex that battle monsters with cool weapons and giant robots. The show premiered in 1993, so I've literally grew up with it. I must admit that there have been periods of time where I haven't really cared to watch Power Rangers, but thanks to YouTube and Netflix, I've been able to rejuvenate my love for the show.
Power Rangers is obviously unrealistic. People can't morph into superheroes and pilot giant robots that destroy overgrown monsters (and half the city). A magical wizard who's head is forever imprisoned in a blue tube cannot choose five overly-friendly and charity-obsessed teenagers to fight an evil witch trying to take over the world. Heck, we don't even know if aliens exist or not, so the whole basic logic of Power Rangers is forever in question.
However, if you search through all of the ridiculousness, you can find some really great morals. The Power Rangers are avid supporters of teamwork. Every member on the team has a specific purpose, and when they all work together, the Rangers are unstoppable. They also vow to never give up their goals, no matter how daunting the road ahead looks. Even in the face of destruction, the Rangers never surrender to the forces of evil. Instead, they keep fighting 'til the bitter end, and then they always pull through to victory.
I feel like I'd be better off adopting these views for my own life. Instead of being a lone wolf, I need to realize that it can be beneficial to work with others. I also find myself giving up quite easily when it comes to studying for an exam or trying to find motivation to write a story. If I vow to keep trying and never give up, I will never have to wonder "What if?".
I think my only real gripe with the show is its portrayal of evil. Almost none of the villains have any real motivation for their actions; they Rangers simply say that they're evil and need to be stopped. It doesn't really help that the Rangers are perfect people who only do bad things when they're under an evil spell. The show fails to teach kids that nobody is truly good or truly bad since we're all flawed.
The show relies on its likable actors and fighting sequences to keep things interesting. With good writing and acting, the Rangers can feel like real people with real issues despite having godly powers. They can serve as role-models for kids, teaching them how to deal with issues such as cheating on tests in school, using martial arts for self-defense only, and how to be a good friend to others. As for the fighting scenes, the Rangers rarely fight humans. If they do, those humans are usually under an evil spell or criminals.
With its flashy spandex and cool robots, the Power Rangers are able to trick the audience into thinking that everything on the show could actually happen. Although that would be really awesome, it unfortunately will not happen (at least for the foreseeable future). So until then, I'll just have to stick with the show.
Power Rangers is obviously unrealistic. People can't morph into superheroes and pilot giant robots that destroy overgrown monsters (and half the city). A magical wizard who's head is forever imprisoned in a blue tube cannot choose five overly-friendly and charity-obsessed teenagers to fight an evil witch trying to take over the world. Heck, we don't even know if aliens exist or not, so the whole basic logic of Power Rangers is forever in question.
However, if you search through all of the ridiculousness, you can find some really great morals. The Power Rangers are avid supporters of teamwork. Every member on the team has a specific purpose, and when they all work together, the Rangers are unstoppable. They also vow to never give up their goals, no matter how daunting the road ahead looks. Even in the face of destruction, the Rangers never surrender to the forces of evil. Instead, they keep fighting 'til the bitter end, and then they always pull through to victory.
I feel like I'd be better off adopting these views for my own life. Instead of being a lone wolf, I need to realize that it can be beneficial to work with others. I also find myself giving up quite easily when it comes to studying for an exam or trying to find motivation to write a story. If I vow to keep trying and never give up, I will never have to wonder "What if?".
I think my only real gripe with the show is its portrayal of evil. Almost none of the villains have any real motivation for their actions; they Rangers simply say that they're evil and need to be stopped. It doesn't really help that the Rangers are perfect people who only do bad things when they're under an evil spell. The show fails to teach kids that nobody is truly good or truly bad since we're all flawed.
The show relies on its likable actors and fighting sequences to keep things interesting. With good writing and acting, the Rangers can feel like real people with real issues despite having godly powers. They can serve as role-models for kids, teaching them how to deal with issues such as cheating on tests in school, using martial arts for self-defense only, and how to be a good friend to others. As for the fighting scenes, the Rangers rarely fight humans. If they do, those humans are usually under an evil spell or criminals.
With its flashy spandex and cool robots, the Power Rangers are able to trick the audience into thinking that everything on the show could actually happen. Although that would be really awesome, it unfortunately will not happen (at least for the foreseeable future). So until then, I'll just have to stick with the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)