February 25, 2004
Rhetorical précis
Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley, in her essay “The Digital Rights War” (Autumn 1998), argues that materials and information on the Internet should stay accessible to anyone by persuading the reader to not misuse copyrights. Books, CDs, magazines, and productions can be shared, photocopied, or borrowed, but Samuelson stresses that “digital information is [still] equivalent of what land, factories, and equipment are in the conventional economy,”(316, PHP 1) and should not be a privilege that is abused or taken for granted. Samuelson’s purpose is to persuade readers to use digital information properly and to respect the owner of the copyright, in order to keep information available to the public without restricting the number of times it can be accessed. Since this essay was written originally for readers of the Wilson Quarterly , a publication of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, readers that are “educated, influenced, and involved,” (www.wilsoncenter.org) Samuelson speaks confidently to the reader, keeping in mind that these readers want to keep their digital information at their fingertips, which helps her persuade the reader to save information by valuing copyrights.
Rhetorical analysis
Purpose: Samuelson’s essay informs the reader that there are misuses of digital information. “News articles, short stories, photographs, motion pictures, sound recordings, and other information,” can be accessed “any time, day or night, almost anywhere in the world,” (315 PGP 1) and this information is being “stolen” from holders of the copyrights. She also persuades the reader to not disregard copyrights of digital materials and information, because “copyright-based enterprises… have been spending hefty sums to create technological “locks” for their products,” (316 PGP 2) which, if information continues to be “stolen,” more technological advances will take place, disabling the total access of digital information.
Context
Audience:
Primary: “The Digital Rights War” was first published in the Autumn 1998 issue of the Wilson Quarterly , a publication for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “Educated, influenced, and involved,” (www.wilsoncenter.org ) are the readers of this magazine. These readers read about issues in politics and policy, culture, religion, science, and other fields that aim to help the public follow “developments in significant realms of knowledge.” (www.wilsoncenter.org )
Secondary: This essay also appears in The Presence of Others , a book used in writing courses in college. Readers are of this book are college students.
Author: Samuelson is a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley. She also codirects the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. When it comes to new electronic and digital economies, she is regarded as one of the most influential of authorities. She’s a member of Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Association of Computing Machinery, also an advisor of the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. With all this background and education, she is a credited one of the hundred most influential lawyers in the U.S. by National Law Journal . She wrote regularly a “Legally Speaking” column in a computing professional’s journal called Communications of the ACM . Along with cyber law and information policies, she teaches about intellectual property laws. She also writes and speaks extensively about the latter, in which “The Digital Rights War” is an example.
Technique
Aristotle’s Three Appeals
Logos: Examples from past events are used to illustrate the abuse of copyrights. She also includes cases of laws that have been passed to preserve property rights of the creator. One example she uses argues, “the law does not confer on owners a right to control the reading of protected, or copyrighted, works,” (316, PGP 4) which shows that digital information will continue to exist because the owner of the copyrights do not have control over how their consumer use or access their materials.
Pathos: She points out that people who misuse copyrighted materials should feel that they have wrongfully violated law and should feel guilty of their misconduct because it’s stealing.
Ethos: Samuelson herself is a writer so she must protect her credibility of her work. That is why she is in so many organizations to protect copyrights.
Toulmin’s method:
Claim: Copyrights of digital information should be protected.
Support: Because the creators of copyrighted materials also need to make money, and be recognized for their work.
Warrant: No one wants his or her work to be unaccredited, or taken without proper equivalent exchange, such as money. No one likes stealing.
Literary: The vocabulary used in this essay was appropriate for the audience and also the topic that was covered. Diction was also easy to follow, as well as the use of language. The tone was an informative and persuasive one. Sentence structures and lengths varied, which made for a more interesting essay to read.
Critical Evaluation
Pamela Samuelson’s paper, “The Digital Rights War,” is started by stating, “the principal right of authors and publishers… is to control reproduction of their works.” (317, PGP 1) She compares copyrights of digital information to being “equivalent of what land, factories, and equipment are in the conventional economy: essential property.” (316, PGP 1) Although digital information is considered property, “once produced, it is easy and cheap to disseminate.” (316, PGP 1) She does not mention, though, that digital materials can be revised, altered, or manipulated by others, and then sold for their own profits or benefits.
The people that “call up news articles, short stories, photographs, motion pictures, sound recordings, and other information any time, day or night, almost anywhere in the world,” (315, PGP 1) are copying and saving the information and violating copyrights to save money. She complains that this is stealing, but she also states that “copyright is, or soon will be, dead” and “all information must ultimately be free.” (320, PGP 1)
In the first few pages of her essay, it is unclear if she is trying to inform, or persuade the reader to protect copyrights, because she has arguments that can benefit both sides. Samuelson wants to save the digital information world, but with her many examples, she argues that some laws are too strict, and some laws are not forceful enough.
Though she assumes that “Congress…never contemplated that the rights of copyright owners would extend so far,” (317, PGP 2) it is accurate and forever altering because of today’s technological advances. She mentions about “copyright-based enterprises…[creating] technological “locks” (316, PHP 2) for their products, but if these locks can be created, “what one technology can do, another technology can often undo.” (318, PGP 4) She is trying to view the subject in a new way, but stating that “locks” can be broken weakens her argument, whether she is for or against stricter copyright protection.
Samuelson is a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley, and an advisor of the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, among many things. Although she is a member of these organizations to protect copyrighted materials, she contradicts herself by stating “…“fair use” is going to wither away in the digital world, and by analogy in the print world.” (317, PGP 3) When she compares the history of printed materials’ copyrights to digital information copyrights, she is suggesting that copyright holders of digitized information will become like those of printed materials. If she believes this, why does she propose, “Americans need to have a broader public conversation about the kind of information future they want to create…that must include the role of copyright”? (319, PGP 5)
She states that “the general public has not had a strong voice…surrounding the seemingly less than scintillating subject of intellectual property,” because “The American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a handful of other groups have sought to speak for the ordinary Americans,” (319, PGP4) but she does not persuade the reader, “ordinary Americans,” to take action. She should either focus on informing the reader about intellectual property, or try and persuade them to protect copyrights.
The term “fair use” is used many times in her essay, but she does not state exactly what it means. An objective of her essay is to perhaps figure out what “fair use” really is. She states, “Photocopying a favorite passage from a play would generally be considered a “fair use”,” but also that “…“fair use” is going to wither away.” (317, PGP 3) She uses an example of her friend in the following passage:
A friend of mine, for example, recently defeated the technical protection on a videocassette in order to get a film clip to demonstrate the negative connotation of the world redskin in a lawsuit. This seemed to him fair use.
This is an example that again weakens her essay because what one thinks of as “fair use” may not be to others.
Samuelson thrashes on the Clinton administration’s white paper laws, arguing that the white paper laws are too strict. She thinks that Congress made an unwise decision, choosing an option of “a general ban on circumvention with specific exceptions,” when they could have chose “banning circumvention only when the purpose is to infringe a copyright,” or a “total ban on circumvention,” although the latter could lead to “circumvention to burglary.” (319, PGP 1) Although these laws helped minimize copyright violators, she did not like the extent of it. She intends to keep her copyrights but also be fair to users of digital information. Perhaps it is not possible to satisfy both parties.
She focuses too much on both sides and argues both ways, making the reader unsure of the objective of her essay, or which way she argues. She could find better ways to make her arguments stronger, convincing the reader that the sharing of information can be controlled, but her arguments are not as strong as they can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment