Johannes+Opinion+Writing

Digital rights management or DRM as it is known is very controversial and some people think that it should be abolished while others think it is still not good enough at preventing the illegal copying of programs, movies and music. Some examples of DRM are Microsoft’s Zune player which only lets you stream a track a certain number of times and the iTunes store where sharing music is restricted. It is meant to prevent illegal copying of media so that the producers can make a living out of producing the media and so they are rewarded for their efforts. I am for digital rights management for the following reasons.

My first argument for the topic is that I believe that digital rights management is used to prevent us from making copies and selling them as a way to make money. That is okay as it is not preventing us from copying music for a couple of friends or for a family member in a non commercial way, even though, by law, it is illegal to copy music for any purpose without paying the producer/s.

Furthermore, I think that without DRM we would not have such a wide variety of music or movies because artists cannot support themselves. Artists earn their living by selling their music or other works. DRM was introduced to prevent illegal copying so that the producers can make money from their media.

Also I think that DRM prevents people from making money by purchasing one CD from lots of artists and then selling them a lot cheaper than any normal retail store who buy them legally. If that happened there may be lots of job losses and people who have a career in music or film making may well be jobless because of piracy.

An important point to consider is that for those people who do not have an internet connection, DRM may be making it more complicated to use a piece of media, due to the online registration systems. Therefore for some people DRM has prevented them from playing a computer game, for example. This could be the case when a program requires an online verification before they can use the full version, but the owner does not have an internet connection. Therefore they would be disadvantaged because they have to pay for an internet connection before they can use their new application.

Furthermore many people believe that everyone should have free access to all media because if people have to pay for their media those who don’t have much money cannot afford the music and so are disadvantaged and have no alternative but to produce their own. Even this may not be possible for them because they have not enough time to learn an instrument or can’t even afford an instrument in the first place.

In conclusion I think that digital rights management is a good thing as it is preventing pirates from exploiting the work of others and by doing so putting music producers out of business. That would be a disaster for the world because there would be a huge lack of new music, videos and games due to the fact that, as said before, there would be only little money to make by producing music or videos and so it would not be an attractive business for people.

My reflection: I think that I have put quite a bit of effort into this piece of writing and I think that it has ended up reasonably good. I think that I could maybe used some more descriptive words so that it is a bit more interesting to read.

The anti smacking law is designed to prevent children from being treated badly for doing something that they shouldn’t have done. It is also made to prevent domestic violence and so that children don’t get hit with some hose pipe or a piece of wood. It was introduced in June 2007 by Sue Bradford of the green party. The anti smacking law is highly controversial here in New Zealand and it is not very well known what things you are allowed to do and what things you aren’t. The jury at the trial can decide whether the smack was appropriate or not. I am not completely against the anti smacking law as I think a smack should be allowed but parents should not be allowed to hit a child with some pipe or a piece of wood.

My first reason is that because of the anti smacking law parents who have hit their child because it has broken a chair, for example, shouldn’t be brought before the court if they are caught in the act as it is part of parental correction and has been done like that for as long as I know. I think from my experience I have not liked the smacks my parents gave me but I know that when they did smack me it was for a good reason as my parents would only smack me if I was really bad.

Furthermore I think that hitting a child with a hose pipe, whether it has reason or not, should not be allowed at all and at first come under the anti smacking law but if it continues to happen regularly it should be classified as child abuse. This in my opinion is unacceptable and also affects the child in such a way that if they see their parents doing it they, thinking of their parents as role models, believe it is okay and so our child abuse in New Zealand will never be a thing of the past. Of course there will be the odd people who think it is fun to see a child getting hit and crying but those people can then be dealt with properly and so, along with the same approach with other crimes we can get the prison population down in New Zealand.

Finally I think that parents are there to look after their children, although there are parents who don’t look after their children and have, in my opinion, totally pathetic excuses like I don’t like my child, or they simply don’t want the child. But for parents who look after their children and love them a smack should be allowed if the child has been really naughty.

In conclusion I think that the anti smacking law should not be abolished but, instead, should be made so that a parent can be prosecuted if it hits the child with some wood, but if the parent gives the child a plain normal smack it should be okay just like it has always been here in New Zealand. This is because otherwise the law will become even more controversial than it is now and in my point of view, will most likely be taken off the law books in the next ten years if it is left as it is now.