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.
So why are people like Metallica and Dr. Dre so angry with Napster? One reason, unrelated to record sales, is that Napster offers unperfected versions of unreleased songs that these artists do not want released until they are completed.
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).
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
There are several ethical issues involved in this case. First is the theft of the copyrighted music produced by artists who have not given Napster the right to transmit their music. Secondly, is the right of Napster to provide a legitimate service to consumers, and how that right has been attacked by artists in the recording industry. There are, indeed, two sides to this story.
Since 1999, the situation around music has been changed drastically. In that year, the novel software “Napster” was released. With this software, people became able to get any file they want easily, sometimes illegally. Some musicians and people in the entertainment industry have tried to exterminate that P2P “Peer to Peer” technology. But it looks as if their efforts are in vain. People are going to use P2P technology more and it might as well become the official way to handle music distribution. The music industry should rather take advantage of the technology than keep trying to exterminate it.
Napster creates a threat to the music industry, which includes Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and well-known musical groups, because it diminishes their distribution control, record sales and lowers their profit. The music industry must continue to take legal action against Napster to eliminate its negative impact.
Napster was thought to be similar to the VCR problem, but with the piracy laws and the government still trying to find ways to regulate the Internet, it became a more difficult battle for Napster to fight. Recording artists were losing money in the sales of compact discs and they were blaming it on the rise of file sharing. Although the radio does entertain the public with its free music, they do have to pay the fees to play the music. They make their money but advertisements and sponsors. Napster used the excuse that people record off the radio for free, but they cannot burn the music they hear. What Napster did not understand was that the music is offered free because the radio stations do pay for it, and they have the rights to issue the music at the level of their pleasure. Napster was simply taking it from the artists and giving free music.
If the final ruling is made to stop Napster’s service, doing so will not be difficult because it is a centralized service. However, “file sharing, a mainstay of Web activity that’s considered almost a ‘right’ by many users, is too popular to stomp out in one fell swoop” (Sherman). The technology under which Napster operates, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), has been in use since 1971. It would be as difficult to destroy this technology as it would music itself. Nonetheless, as with many other technologies that threaten to freely distribute copyrighted music, the RIAA is attempting to stop the file sharing movement in its tracks. Alex Torralbas, who has worked in the recording industry, states, “in the 1980s they (the RIAA) effectively killed the digital audio tape, and in the ‘70s, albums and tapes bore skull-and-crossbones stickers warning buyers against taping the music on cassettes.
The music industry survives mainly on the sales of CD’s. Napster enables one person to purchase the CD, and through the use of their computer, they give the music to millions of different users.
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.
that Napster steals money from them and the artists that they represent. This is because if
Napster quickly became a very popular web site with a 15 million registered users in less than a year, according to company sources. However, Napster’s remarkable success was not at its best interest. It had drawn the attention of the Record Industry, and raised its concerns of Copyright infringement in large volumes. Barely a year after its launch, it was sued by the RIAA, which represents major recording companies such as Universal Music, BMG, Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and EMI. The RIAA claimed that by allowing users to swap music recordings for free, Napster’s service violated Copyright laws. Eventually, the judge ruled against Napster, and, failing to complete the sale deal with Bertelsmann AG, it had to shut down its operations and liquidate its assets [3].
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.