1. Lambert 1
(Robert) Curtis Lambert
English 101
Professor Bolton
25 July, 2012
Research Paper SELF EDITING Addendum to Handout from D2L:
2a. I use the reference material for my text analysis (my “jumping off point”) as the basis of my
research paper and offer explanations as to why I disagree with Lawrence Lessig’s premise. How
does the law effectively curtail the downloading of music and movies for free, and in this same
arena, how do we actually define stealing of digital media? This is not a new phenomenon, as
Lessig’s essay repeatedly states; the only thing new with this issue today is the type of medium
being used to pirate other artist’s works. There are still many unanswered, and unasked,
questions within the on-going debate of how to legally address and correct the apparent plethora
of media piracy that exists in our current digital world. Nevertheless, lawmakers want the artist
whose works are being pirated to continue to be patient as the laws protecting their copyrights
are ever evolving. The current age of digital technology reproduces and improves upon itself at a
staggering pace, and new legislation simply cannot be amended in the same time frame. The
entertainment industry has spent the better part of the last 30 years, since the first blank VHS
tape was sold, trying to determine how to curtail the rampant growth of the media piracy
industry. The contention between the artist and the laws governing copyright infringements is
directly connected to the time it takes to amend the legislation to be inclusive of any new
medium that is capable of recording or downloading artists’ works.

2. Lambert 2
3a. It is an engaging opening paragraph because it deals with the issue at large, and offers insight
as to why I chose this topic. The topic of my essay is Media Piracy and the inability of our
judicial system to come to any agreement on what, in today’s digital world, clearly defines
stealing of illegally downloaded material. My intent is to clarify why this is a pressing issue and
needs to be addressed expeditiously.
4c. My thesis is clear because, the precedent for media piracy laws has been set since before the
turn of the 20th century, and although the type of media continues to develop and progress at a
rate beyond our ability to keep up, the basic statute of the law has not changed: if one duplicates
and/or sells or uses someone else’s media, in any form, without their written or express
permission, then they are breaking the law.
4d. Lawmakers have long established what it means to illegally copy another person’s work
[property] to be used for personal monetary gain, or for personal use. Either way the law is clear
and there is no need for re-interpretation, eventhough the types of media have evolved.
5a. BODY PARAGRAPH 1: The entertainment industry has been working diligently to reduce
copyright infringement since its inception before the turn of the 20th Century.
This statement above corresponds directly with my thesis.
Hollywood was founded on two production studios refusal to pay royalties to Thomas
Edison, who owned the rights to the inventions the film industry was utilizing at the time, and
anyone with a computer can now have access to any copyrighted works via the Internet.
Research has proven that there are billions of dollars in revenue that is lost around the globe,
directly linked to illegal downloads. The LOGOS of this paragraph should appeal to the reader.

3. Lambert 3
We should not want to repeat history, as we have done time and again, on this issue, since the
time of Thomas Edison, and before.
John Gantz and Jack B. Rochester for Pirates of the Digital Millennium : How the
Intellectual Property Wars Damage Our Personal Freedoms, Our Jobs, and the World
Economy, shows that since 2004 the music industry has lost over four billion dollars annually
worldwide and the movie industry has lost over three billion dollars annually in the United States
alone, all due directly to illegal internet downloading of pirated media.
This sentence above supports my claim that we are robbing artists of monies due them by
our apathetic attitudes toward this issue in the courts.
5b. BODY PARAGRAPH 2: There has been an enormous amount of support for the media
piracy naysayers on Capitol Hill over the past several years; nevertheless, Congress has also
heard a tremendous amount of impassioned testimony from many in the entertainment industry
directly affected by the apparent apathy of these same lawmakers. While testifying before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, February 28, 2002, Jack
Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America [MPAA] had this to say:
At this precise moment…works [movies] are in ever multiplying numbers swarming
illegally throughout the so-called file sharing sites (a more accurate description would be
“file-stealing” sites)…There is one truth that sums up the urgency of this request to
Congress…if you cannot protect what you own you don’t own anything. (1)
I use the statement above, which correlates with my thesis, as well as my research article, to
support my claim that there is a need for attention to the time factor that has always plagued
media piracy in developing technology. Valenti eloquently states what most of the entertainment

4. Lambert 4
industry feels is the root of their struggle with the current copyright laws: what do these artists
actually own if they have no control over who has access to it? Furthermore, Gantz and
Rochester go on to address the question and to clearly define in each medium what piracy is, or
at the very least, what it should be. They list several statements as being officially on record in
the dispute to determine fair ownership of copyrighted property. Valenti’s statement rings true to
most people’s ears when discussing ownership and theft in those basic terms. My reference
above comes directly from research compiled by John Gantz and Jack B. Rochester for Pirates
of the Digital Millennium : How the Intellectual Property Wars Damage Our Personal
Freedoms, Our Jobs, and the World Economy.
5c. BODY PARAGRAPH 3: The struggle society continues to have with the term media piracy
is the connotation it evokes of one being a thief. I use the example that most college students
would never consider plagiarizing a work for an essay or research paper, any more than they
would rob a store or break the honor code at their University by cheating on their final exams.
On the other hand, they seem to have no issue downloading and sharing music through a Peer-2-
Peer file sharing network, even though most would admit that they know it is wrong, they just
don’t see it as illegal, and therein lays the problem. The current copyright laws are so muddled
and unclear even Judges struggle to effectively interpret the statutes. I use ETHOS in this body
paragraph for impact: it is important for the reader to know my research has been compiled form
a variety of sources, and by this point they will have seen 4 sources cited from a variety of
experts in different fields. In the booklet Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast
Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole , from February 22, 2005, the Committee
heard testimony via a written statement from Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting on

5. Lambert 5
the Commission’s recommendation due, in part, “…because the [regulations did] not preclude
the use for content…already in the public domain…and because the criteria adopt[ed] for
accepting digital content protection technologies fail to address…the impact…on personal
privacy” (99).
I wanted to use official documented transcripts from U.S. Senate hearings to lend
credibility and an element of trust, that the government is, in fact, dragging their feet on this
issue.
5d. BODY PARAGRAPH 4: The vast majority of the media that is duplicated is done legally
and the artists whose work is being recorded, in any fashion, is compensated according to the
law. Although it has become increasingly difficult to monitor and protect the rights of artists in
the media industry, due largely to the fact that digital technology changes and advances at
lightning speed in today’s market, it is not altogether impossible to keep a watchful eye. Also,
the claim that piracy of developing media technology is not new rests upon the questionable
assumption that there is always going to be a certain element in society that does not adhere to
these seemingly random piracy laws, and we need to be patient, while giving the courts and the
laws the opportunity to catch up. There are equal amounts of logos and ethos used effectively
here, both based on factual information that supports my argument. There is no cited research in
this paragraph; all of this section is paraphrased from information gleaned from a variety of
sources.
6a. Counterargument Paragraph: When it comes to the topic of media piracy, most of us will
readily agree that taking someone else’s property without their permission is stealing.

6. Lambert 6
6b. In my conclusion I make the concession that, it would be easy to concur that the inability to
render a legal decision on copyright royalties has been a problem since the media piracy debate
began at the end of the 18th century, and the discussions we are having today about how to reign
in media piracy are not new, only the technology we are debating is new. However, the artist
whose work is being stolen through illegal downloads and rampant media piracy is continually
asked to accept that all piracy is not wrong and to give the courts time to decide accordingly on
each individual account. I will concede primarily on the basis that public domain, and legal
downloads, muddle the legal waters of what is and is not media piracy.
6c. The paper clearly states a moral directive: most of us will readily agree that taking someone
else’s property without their permission is stealing. This is pretty straight-forward and leaves no
room for debate. Stealing is stealing. Period. I will present, through a number of quotes and
references, that the laws on media piracy are cloudy, at best, and the youth culture of today sees
the proliferation of P-2-P file sharing as “wrong” (maybe!), but not illegal.