Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
arthur miller criticism
the meaning of life and death in literature
social ramifications of suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: arthur miller criticism
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman as Epic Tragedy
Aristotle's Poetics defines the making of a dramatic or epic tragedy and presents the general principles of the construction of this genre. Surprisingly, over the centuries authors have remained remarkably close to Aristotle's guidelines. Arthur Miller's twentieth century tragedy Death of a Salesman is an example of this adherence to Aristotle's prescription for tragedy. It is significant to test Aristotle's definition and requirements of tragedy by comparison and contrast, against a contemporary tragedy and to make observations with regard to what influence society and culture may have on the genre. This discussion however, will be confined to the realm of plot and the more notable aspects of the construction of the incidents in tragedy because of the complexity of this element.
Aristotle's attention throughout much of Poetics is directed towards the requirements and expectations of plot. Plot, 'the soul of tragedy', Aristotle says, must be an imitation of a noble and complete action. In Death of a Salesman, Miller does provide a complete action, that is it has what Aristotle identifies as a beginning, a middle, and an end. These divisible sections must, and do in the case of Death of a Salesman, meet the criterion of their respective placement. Whether Miller provides a nobel action, however, is an issue of culture. Willy Loman ultimately takes his own life so that his son Biff may benefit from the insurance money that he will receive. The question then, is according to our culture is his suicide noble? Since Willy's suicide is perpetrated for Biff's benefit, one could view this act as sacrifice. Sacrifice is in our culture, a pious and admirable quality, one of...
... middle of paper ...
...ath of a Salesman' Twentieth Century Literature. January, 1972. 19-24. Rpt. in World Literary Criticism. Ed. Frank Magill. 'Arthur Miller' Detroit: Gale Research, 1992. 2366-2368.
Hayman, Ronald. Arthur Miller. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1972.
Hoeveler, D. J. 'Ben's Influence.' Arthur Miller?s Death of a Salesman: Modern Critical Interpretations. Ed. Harold Blum. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 1988. 72-81.
Magill, Frank. 'Death of a Salesman.' Master Plots. Englewood Cliffs: Salem, 1976. 1365-1368.
Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. New York: Penguin, 1949.
---. Conversations With Arthur Miller. Jackson: Mississippi UP, 1987.
Parker, Brian. 'Point of View in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman.' Arthur Miller: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Robert Corrigan. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1969. 98-107.
The RIAA believe that Napster has helped users infringe copyright. The threat of the lawsuit has been around since the conception of Napster and was actually filed four months after Napster went on line. The case is not as clear-cut as it first appears. RIAA argues that most of the MP3's on Napster's site are mainly pirated. Therefore, by Napster allowing and actually making it easier for users to download MP3's this means that they are assisting Copyright infringement.
A popular program easily accessible on the Internet is called Napster. After you download it from Napster’s site, you basically tell it where you keep your Mp3 files and when it connects it cross-references everyone’s files and lets you search through them all and download as you please. 90% of the files that are traded daily are illegally “ripped” from CDs. Napster has a blurb at startup that states “Copying or distributing unauthorized Mp3 files may violate United States and/or foreign copyright laws. Compliance with copyright law remains your responsibility.” The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is charging the site with copyright infringement and alleges that Napster has created a base for music piracy on an unprecedented scale. Napster contends that they provide the platform, not the actions, and that as the blurb states it’s up to the people. Napster is not at fault because the RIAA has overstepped their boundaries and infringed on first amendment rights online.
In this case, there are three main effects of Napster on the recording industry. The first one is that it caused a large decline in record sales in a short time. According to this case, the spending on recorded music in U.S dropped 4.1% in 2001 and the industry’s top 10 albums also sold much less compared to the year before. The second effect is that it cased the sales of CD burners, blank CDs and digital audio players increase and nowadays, most new computers come with CD-RW drives installed, which means people can easily store downloaded music, share music with friends and take it with them anytime as well. The third effect is that it increased the cost of recorded music. Once people can download free music through peer-to-peer software services, they have less incentive to buy original editions, which will make recording industry spend more to fight against copyrights and invest more in new artists and new music. Overall, these three effects make the recording industry go through a hard time.
this scenario in defense of a Napster user. What if someone only wants one song on a $20.00
The approach that was taken by the music industry to take down file sharing service was to attack it from all sides – Napster was hit with several lawsuits from different sectors of the music industry. First to hit was A&M Records. A&M Records was actually not a single record label, but a group of plaintiffs that were all members of the RIAA, the Recording Industry Association of America. Some of these plaintiffs include Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records America, Universal Music Group, and Warner Bros. Records. When Napster was issued a preliminary injunction by the District Court, it appealed the decision at the Ninth Circuit. I chose to focus on the District Court case because it was where the arguments were ...
By fall 2000, there were 80 million users for Napster, and according to survey that was conducted on Napster users, there was an increase of 9% in music fans spending, among more experienced users there was an increase of 20% in their music spending, in addition to an increase of 19% among those using high speed connection. Napster and other free file sharing had caused the record sales to suffer. However, the file sharing services altered the conventional way of lessening to music for consumers. In 2001, 50% of U.S. households owned PCs; consumers spent $1.6 billion on CD burner, blank CDs and digital-audio players. 54% of PCs sales came with CD burners. More than 26% of online music users were ...
The ethical dilemma of computer downloads, namely music downloads, has been under great scrutiny in the last few years. Napster, if any one symbolizes the new technology, was the front runner in developing the new digital trading. The ethical issues seem to revolve around the all mighty dollar. Some particular musicians, namely Lars Ulrich from Metallica and Dr. Dre (rap star), have had some serious issues with Napster. Their claims have merit, but so do the claims of the creator and users of Napster.
Sean Fanning and Sean Parker originally intended for Napster to be a “peer to peer” file-sharing program. Napster changed the way we as a community shared files. Instead of going out and buying a CD from one of your favorite artist, rather you could download their latest single and create your own CD rather than buying just one CD because you only like one of the songs. Instead you were converting different music files into MP3. These changes caused the Music Industry to take a hit singles were being released before they were even suppose to come out. CD sales dropped. The Record industry became outraged, even musicians started getting fed up. When it comes to the whole Napster vs. RIAA I had no idea that it was as huge as it was. I can understand
First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Napster was found liable for this because the users used its platform to upload and download copyrighted music, thus infringing on
As I sat in front of my computer downloading my favorite song from Napster, I started to think about how hard it must have been to write a song so sublime with the way the words flow from one another, and how talented one must be to do so. I started to think how hard people work on their music for themselves and their fans, and how their fans don’t realize what they are doing every time they download a song off the internet. What they don’t realize is that it is messing over the people who worked so hard pouring out their heart and soul into their music for everyone to enjoy. They are the people who are responsible for the music, not the people who work at Napster, or any of the other shafting music networks, who are embezzling from the people we all admire for the way they can flow out those heartwarming words. These words move us to the point that we want to cry, and sometimes do. These words we listen to when we want to go off into our own little world, and think about an extraordinary moment we once had that makes our sorrows disappear. These words remind us of a passed loved one who was once forgotten, and never to be again. They are the people who put their heart and soul into their music; these are people we use so selfishly and don’t even realize how much blood sweat and tears they shed just to put out quality words. They are the people we take for granted, and they are the people who sometimes take us, their fans, for granted as well, they are the artists themselves. File sharing is what it is thought as, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as theft, music theft; most commonly know as shafting. Every day people use shafting and think nothing of it. People sit in front of their computers and go to their favorite website and download file after file with out thinking how or where it comes from. They think it is just there for the taking and it is. Shafting is a trend that has just begun, but only time will tell how far it will go.
In 2000, one of the biggest news stories was the rise of Napster and similar file-sharing programs. With these programs, you could get an MP3 version of just about any song you want without shelling out a dime. The record companies were fairly upset over this turn of events, and understandably so: They weren't making any money off the distribution of their product to millions of people.
According to the text A Gift of Fire, Napster “opened on the Web in 1999 as a service that allowed its users to copy songs in MP3 files from the hard disks of other users” (Baase, 2013, p. 192, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The Napster Case). Napster was, however, “copying and distributing most of the songs they traded without authorization” (A Gift of Fire, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The Napster Case). This unauthorized file sharing resulted in a lawsuit - “eighteen record companies sued for contributory infringement claiming that Napster users were blatantly infringing copyrights by digitally reproducing and distributing music without a license” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 359).
The story really begins with Napster and its free software that allowed users to swap music across the Internet for free using peer-to-peer networks. While Shawn Fanning was attending Northeastern University in Boston, he wanted an easier method of finding music than by searching IRC or Lycos. John Fanning of Hull, Massachusetts, who is Shawn's uncle, struck an agreement which gave Shawn 30% control of the company, with the rest going to his uncle. Napster began to build an office and executive team in San Mateo, California, in September of 1999. Napster was the first of the massively popular peer-to-peer file sharing systems, although it was not fully peer-to-peer since it used central servers to maintain lists of connected systems and the files they provideddirectories, effectivelywhile actual transactions were conducted directly between machines. Although there were already media which facilitated the sharing of files across the Internet, such as IRC, Hotline, and USENET, Napster specialized exclusively in music in the form of MP3 files and presented a user-friendly interface. The result was a system whose popularity generated an enormous selection of music to download. Napster became the launching pad for the explosive growth of the MP3 format and the proliferation of unlicensed copyrights.
Napster is a company that developed the so-called peer-to-peer technology that lets people search and retrieve music files directly from one another's personal computers. When Napster first came out, millions of internet users worldwide were illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music, videos, images, and software for free. After being vilified by the entertainment industry, which claims that Napster and any similar programs could make piracy of almost any digital work unstoppable, and many court battles, Napster was ordered by court to be shutdown in 2000. The technology has been praised as a revolutionary development for the Internet—unaware of the problems that would arise from such practices. However, the termination of Napster was not enough, months later, dozens of new, like programs were being developed and used. And since Napster, not much has been done to stop these latest downloading programs.