Free Music and Films

[Swan]

These days free music and free films are available online. Is this a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

In recent years we have faced an ever-increasing plight in cyberspace called free downloading. Many artistic works such as pieces of music or newly-released movies are illegally available on the Internet free of charge. While there are certainly valid arguments to the contrary, I personally believe that the drawbacks of this issue far outweigh its benefits. This essay will attempt to elaborate on this controversial topic with some relevant examples with my involvement.

First and foremost, I believe that we need to note that artists have some basic cost as a human being in addition to the extra costs they have to pay to create them. If we download their works without paying, they absolutely go to a terrible debt not being able to make any further artistic work. Despite the fact that the widespread use of free music and movies succeeded to open up people’s mind in underdeveloped areas such a usage destroyed many film producers, especially young producers. However at the same time, having no cost to watch films and music in Iran, for example, has resulted in a better understanding of the western culture and less anger toward western countries.

Equally importantly, this freely enjoyable activity could be considered unethically and questionable at the very least. The more available the artist’s works, the less memorable new products. Disappointed and poor, the artists in such societies have no choice but to involve in other fields to make a living. Admittedly, this is not a merit for society, the art and artist as well. Nonetheless, this may be considered a positive point from the person who do the downloading. Recently I have heard about a guy who was charged with providing free access to a magnificent movie data base to people around the globe. This clearly is violation to artists’ rights.

To put it in a nutshell, once again I reaffirm my position that free download of artistic works can negatively impact both art and artist. Only by this can we expect artist to create memorable products. That artists have to be paid for what they create is an indisputable fact.

TOEFL listening discussions: Two roommates talking about fraternities

[Luschen]

Hi Swan, another good essay. Your vocabulary and grammar are pretty good, but you did not really integrate your positive and negative arguments very well. Your thesis says the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, so it is unclear why you seemed to insert benefits at various points in your paragraphs. It is fine to mention the benefits, but you have to do a better job of showing why they are irrelevant or not very powerful. Here are some specific suggestions:

@Swan

These days free music and free films are available online. Is this a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

In recent years we have faced an ever-increasing plight in cyberspace called {“in the form of” might be better than “called”} free downloading. Many artistic works such as pieces of music or newly-released movies are illegally available on the Internet free of charge. While there are certainly valid arguments to the contrary, I personally believe that the drawbacks of this issue {it sounds odd to say an “issue” has drawbacks. Usually there are two sides to an issue or controversy, so it is the practice or the unchecked spread of free downloading that has the drawbacks} far outweigh its benefits. This essay will attempt to elaborate on this controversial topic with some relevant examples with[based on] my involvement. {is this what you mean? the “based on my involvement” seemed a little vague}

First and foremost, I believe that we need to note that artists have some basic cost as a human being {this sounds odd - like you could buy a human being for say $100 - I think you mean “living expenses” or “amount they must earn simply to survive” - and once again, “human being” sounds odd in a non-biological context} in addition to the extra costs they have to pay to create them[these manifestations of creativity]. If we download their works without paying, they absolutely go [into] a terrible debt[, resulting in their] not being able to make any further artistic work. Despite the fact that the widespread use of free music and movies succeeded [in opening] up people’s [minds] in underdeveloped areas {it is unclear whether the minds are in undeveloped areas or the producers in undeveloped areas were destroyed - try to rephrase your sentence to eliminate the ambiguity} such a usage destroyed many film producers, especially young producers. However at the same time, having no cost {"having not cost to watch " sounds a bit awkward here - maybe “having the option to watch films and music at no cost in Iran …” } to watch films and music in Iran, for example, has resulted in a better understanding of the western culture and less anger toward western countries. {I don’t know how effective it is to mixed positive and negative consequences like this. At least if you do this you have to guide the reader better as to what you are trying to argue or prove}

Equally importantly, this freely [seemingly] enjoyable activity could be considered [unethical] and questionable at the very least. The more available the artist’s works, the less memorable new products. {this sentence is very confusing to me - what do you mean?} Disappointed and poor, the artists in such societies have no choice but to involve [themselves] {or “but to become involved in …”} in other fields to make a living. Admittedly, this is not a merit for society, the art and artist as well. {I think you have to go the extra step and show why full-time artists are better than part-time ones} Nonetheless, this may be considered a positive point from the person who [does] the downloading. Recently I have heard about a guy who was charged with providing free access to a magnificent movie data base to people around the globe. This clearly is violation [of] artists’ rights. {this whipsawing back and forth between advantages and disadvantages is pretty confusing to me - I think you are saying that it may seem like there are advantages, but the people enjoying the advantages do not realize how much harm they are causing. But this should be clearly stated - don’t require the reader to “read between the lines”}

To put it in a nutshell, once again I reaffirm my position that free [downloading] of artistic works can negatively impact both art and artist. Only by this {only by what? “this” seems pretty vague here - maybe “only be ensuring that proper recompense is paid to those who create valuable online content …”} can we expect artist to create memorable products. That artists have to be paid for what they create is an indisputable fact.

TOEFL listening discussions: Two roommates talking about fraternities

[Swan]

Dear Luschen,

First of all I would like to extend my gratitude to your invaluable comments, and the time you spent on my essay.
About the whipsawing I must say that I read a wonderful essay in which the author was trying to show advantages and disadvantages at the same time, and found it really interesting. I thought it definitely grasp the readers’ attention, hence I tried to write similar to that one.

Here I provide you one of the paragraph

First of all, it is an indisputable fact that the Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate. Despite the risk of social isolation – a problem occasionally seen in people who
spend too much time at their computer terminal rather than relating to people in the real world –most of us have benefited greatly from e-mail and internet chat programs like MSN Messenger. These incredibly useful and powerful tools of communication facilitate both contact with loved ones in faraway places and global trade.

As you see above the author wrote about the merits and disadvantages as well.

Thanks again,
Amir

[Luschen]

Hi Swan, I found the essay you are referring to and I agree it is well written. I think it is good to analyze what makes it work. In the first body paragraph, she already reduces the importance of the potential counterargument by using “occasionally”. Then she immediately refutes the argument by stating how the internet actually improves communication and reduces social isolation, giving the example of families in faraway places. The key is that she stuck to the same topic - isolation. In contrast, in your first body paragraph you talk about fairness to artists, but give a counterargument of opening up people’s minds, then you do not rebut this at all in your paragraph. A clue is that you end the paragraph with the counterargument, which means that you did not respond to it.

Now, rereading this other essay, I think she may have gone too far in giving the opposing arguments. In her second paragraph she responds very briefly to the objection, but in her final body paragraph she does not really respond at all. Yet her thesis says that the benefits “far outweigh its drawbacks”. To me it seems odd to give this long list of drawbacks and then immediately say “I once again reaffirm my position that the Internet has had a positive impact …”