Piracy is a vice that has taken toll with the introduction of the internet. With the introduction of the internet, there are various collections and distributions of music and TV programmes on the internet. This free collection makes it easier for people to access these programmes without paying for them. This has been a vice that has been fought from time to time. It has been blamed for the decline in the revenue in the music and entertainment industry. There are benefits that come with piracy and downloading of music clips and TV programmes. This paper will critique an article that advocates for this behavior that is regarded to be a nuisance and letdown for most artists and TV producers. Programme and music theft can be scrutinized in three angles; for the creator of the programme and music who experiences loss, the pirate who achieves from its services and makes money by selling it and the end user who might opt to promote the producer or the pirate at a relatively cheaper cost.
One place that the author fails in the article analysis is to give the working of the pay TV technology. This information is lacking in the article. The author should have given the working of pay TV and the reason why some programmes are aired on the premium versions of TV channels. There should be sufficient description of the technology and why this trend of piracy and downloading was popular with many people. There is no link and connection that the author gives to the sudden rise of piracy of TV programmes with the introduction of pay TV. The reason behind this is left to be filled by the reader. This information is lacking in the paper. The author should have looked into the logistics and the sudden increase of pirated material from the internet. The author should have argued the reason for the start of piracy when pay TV was introduced. I agree that the above reasons are quantifiable for the people who desperately need to use popular TV programmes, but this does not make this act less unethical. A universal solution should instead be sought, even if it means rendering TV programmes to free access as it was in the 1970’s. The replicable nature of the media in which software is packed and sold in has also been a contributing factor to software theft, instead of going around blaming the pirates, software vendors should first seal the loopholes they themselves have provided towards piracy.
There is an important element that the author brings up that arouses the interest of any researcher and reader. The author argues that when some part of population gain access to some part of music, they will want to distribute to others and this raises the interests of the viewers. The author argues that those who have access to a popular programme on the TV are bound to urge others to watch the programme. The author gives an example of how the viewers informed others of the popular programme. It shows that any leak of information and access to a popular clip will increase the popularity and the interest to watch the clip. The author is on point here and gives some evidence of this scenario and trend. This is an important fact that the author gives, it is important to back up information with facts and statistics otherwise it will be regarded as mere rumor and hearsay. It was an important way that the author had to show the source of the facts so that the information is validated. It is an academic requirement that all the sources are backed with facts.
In conclusion, the author gives some rules that should be undertaken in order to get the most out of free access of TV programmes is laid down. These are like the concluding remarks. The author lays down the principles and the rules which should be followed when undertaking the research. The article is conclusive and comprehensive. It can be relied upon for research in this field.
Pesce, M. (2005). Piracy is Good? New Models for the Distribution of Television Programming. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from Australian Film Television and Radio School: http://hyperreal.org/~mpesce/piracyisgood.pdf