The purpose of this review is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the article. There are two reasons why this article is very engaging and almost convincing. On the other hand, there are reasons for rejecting the author’s sentiments based on the obvious weak points.
The author cited several other writers who hold a professional certification or academic degree to support the premise that sharing music online is stealing and therefore wrong. For instance, there was a statement mentioned by a legal expert by the name of Cuttle who said that “piracy of software, video games and music is stealing” (2007). Secondly, the author makes a definitive statement to clarify the difference between a moral issue and a legal issue. In doing so, he claimed that people chose to do the right thing morally and buy music once payment methods became accessible. Once again, he provided the statement of a researchers Ebo, Markham and Malik to validate his claim about the consumer behaviors. Based on their 2004 research, even the public would agree that downloading music is an act of wrongful theft. The paragraphs are crawling with validations from other writers and a clear explanation of what constitutes a moral dilemma versus a legal theft. These are the strengths of the article.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Stealing is Always Wrong".
There are a few things that make the article somewhat repulsive. First there is a phony attempt to acknowledge the alternative point of view that sharing music online is not stealing. Carla is the name of one author mentioned in the article. Her point was that internet downloaders are only bothersome to profit-driven companies (2006). The bigger and more important argument is that sharing music is “the kindness between frields” (Hibbs, 2006). The author refuted these two points by insinuating that they are merely rationalizations. In doing this, he does not account for the fact that people have been creating and exchange musical cassettes since the days before CD’s and DVD’s were in stores. There was never a moral or legal issue with bringing a mixed-tape to a party for dancing, drinking and family time. Why should there be a problem now? The author insufficiently addressed the counterarguments. Meanwhile, the futile attempts to fairly address the other points of view were done by simply dismissing them with more biased commentary. The article was dripping with an immature demonstration of unfairness. This was the obvious weakness in the author’s writing.
In conclusion, the idea that stealing is always wrong is absolutely true. It is wrong to plagiarize someone else’s writing. It is wrong to used images on a website without permission from the original photographer. It is wrong to sell copies of an artist’s music or an actor’s movies for profit without legally granted permission from the producers. However, there is nothing wrong with sharing, giving credit to the original artists and enjoying music whether it is online or offline. The problem lies in the gray area where people try to charge money for music they did not create. Paying for a membership to a website where people can share music is also fine as long as all profits are paid to the record labels and producers of the music where possible.
