Argumentative Essay _ Week 9
200903450 French/EIT
Hyein Jin
In this material civilization, People usually believe that they can possess everything. However, there are things obviously not able to be owned. The thoughts - the spirit of the times, principles and ideologies - are not subject to possession and worth spreading. Therefore, it prompts us to the conclusion that intellectual properties should be treated differently with the tangible properties because they have inherited from the past or present thoughts. Thus, intellectual properties should be more shared to encourage the creativity and prevent people from governmental surveillance.
Above all, spreading intellectual properties blooms the creativity. There is a famous quote 'Imitation teaches creation'. Likewise, we learn, and we are influenced from the past. In addition, as time goes by, human knowledge and understandings have been accumulated so that we now live in an age that almost everything had been spoken and seen. Consequently, It is impossible to deny that our way of thinking that produces intellectual properties are inspired and driven by previous cultural assets. A monopoly of knowledge only causes a gap between those who have access to the information and those who are not.
Secondly, the total protection of intellectual properties is unreasonable since it enables the central surveillance on private sectors. If all usages of previous intellectual properties were banned, it would only be possible when everything is under surveillance. In such a case, in order to control, government or central organization would interrupt our life. Then, government would possibly abuse their power to control over their people. Since intellectual properties are rooted in our daily cultures, so it is hard to distinguish what should be kept a watch on and what should not.
Recently there are a lot of people who firmly believe that all intellectual properties should be protected. They are right somehow since the author or creator of intellectual properties surely deserve the reputation and privilege from their works. However, opening all intellectual works to public does not mean that they have to give up their right. It rather promotes their works since all original authors should be marked in all usages according to copyright law. In addition, it is already impossible to ban all kinds of sharing throughout internet. Therefore, it is not the time to think about how to wholly protect intangible works and properties, but the time to consider how to manage the scope of the sharing.
Intellectual properties have particular characteristics because it is a heritage of common culture, thus it should be shared under proper measure of control in order to stimulate creativity and avoid governmental watch. Today we live the world of sharing enabled by internet. Thanks to it, 'exclusive information' does not exist anymore. Isn't it fantastic that we are now able to learn whatever we want based on broader access for the knowledge? We are on the way of improvement of the life, and why don't we march forward together sharing our knowledge?
1. What I like about this piece of writing is the way you organized your writing. It is very well organized and easy to understand.
ReplyDelete2. Your main point seems to be that intellectual properties should be shared.
3. These particular words or lines struck me as powerful: I have different opinions than yours. However your supporting ideas are enough convincing to change my mind. Your supporting ideas are very reasonable.
4. Some things aren’t clear to me. nothing. I like your writing as a whole.
5. The one change you could make that would make the biggest improvement in this piece of writing is minor grammatical problems. It is almost perfect, though.
To Hyein Jin From Jisu Song 201001709 Assignment 6
ReplyDelete1. What I like about this piece of writing is your idea that we have to consider the scope of sharing intellectual property. I think it was very persuasive.
2. Your main point seems to be you are for sharing intellectual properties.
3. These particular words or lines struck me as powerful:
I like the last sentence, ‘why don’t we march forward~’. It was very persuasive.
4. Some things aren’t clear to me. These lines or parts could be improved (meaning not clear, supporting points missing, order seems mixed up, writing not lively):
Why don’t you use ‘censorship’ instead of ‘surveillance’ in your 2nd body paragraph? Because surveillance seems more like an IT terminology to me.
5. The one change you could make that would make the biggest improvement in this piece of writing is your capitalization. Some letters don’t have to be capitalized in your essay.
======================================= Revised Writing
ReplyDelete1. I consulted feedback from peers.
2. I changed some words and revised some context.
======================================================
In this material civilization, People usually believe that they can possess everything. However, there are things obviously not able to be owned. The thoughts - the spirit of the times, principles and ideologies - are not subject to possession and worth spreading. Therefore, it prompts us to the conclusion that intellectual properties should be treated differently with the tangible properties because they have inherited from the past or present thoughts. Thus, intellectual properties should be more shared to encourage the creativity and prevent people from governmental surveillance.
Above all, spreading intellectual properties blooms the creativity. There is a famous quote 'Imitation teaches creation'. Likewise, we learn, and we are influenced from the past. In addition, as time goes by, human knowledge and understandings have been accumulated so that we now live in an age that almost everything had been spoken and seen. Consequently, it is impossible to deny that our way of thinking that produces intellectual properties are inspired and driven by previous cultural assets. A monopoly of knowledge only causes a gap between those who have access to the information and those who are not.
Secondly, the total protection of intellectual properties is unreasonable since it enables the central censorship on private sectors. If all usages of previous intellectual properties were banned, it would only be possible when everything is under surveillance. In such a case, in order to control, government or central organization would interrupt our life. Then, government would possibly abuse their power to control over their people. Since intellectual properties are rooted in our daily cultures, so it is hard to distinguish what should be kept a watch on and what should not.
Recently there are a lot of people who firmly believe that all intellectual properties should be protected. They are right somehow since the author or creator of intellectual properties surely deserve the reputation and privilege from their works. However, opening all intellectual works to public does not mean that they have to give up their right. It rather promotes their works since all original authors should be marked in all usages according to copyright law. In addition, it is already impossible to ban all kinds of sharing throughout internet. Therefore, it is not the time to think about how to wholly protect intangible works and properties, but the time to consider how to manage the scope of the sharing.
Intellectual properties have different characteristics with tangible assets or goods because it is a heritage of common culture. Thus, it should be shared under proper measure of control in order to stimulate creativity and avoid governmental watch. Today we live the world of sharing enabled by internet. Thanks to it, 'exclusive information' does not exist anymore. Isn't it fantastic that we are now able to learn whatever we want based on broader access for the knowledge? We are on the way of improvement of the life, and why don't we march forward together sharing our knowledge?