human
Write a summary about furthermore music piracy that is not stealing because it is a victimless crime.
assistant
The author argues that music piracy is not stealing because it is a victimless crime. Is Music Piracy Stealing? On the basis of the given article, lets try to examine the problem and find whether the authors rhetoric is effectively supported or it is just a damage to the primary claim. We live in the 21 th century; computer and internet technologies make much of our life, the means and opportunities they suggest are unquestionably benefits for the user or the internet surfer. The cloud of the article by Charles Moore is whether downloading music, software or some other kind of information as the intellectual property from internet resources is a benefit and the way to learn more or to take pleasure in some masterpiece or, violation of the law.
human
Delete the last sentence.
assistant
The author argues that music piracy is not stealing because it is a victimless crime. Is Music Piracy Stealing? On the basis of the given article, lets try to examine the problem and find whether the authors rhetoric is effectively supported or it is just a damage to the primary claim. We live in the 21 th century; computer and internet technologies make much of our life, the means and opportunities they suggest are unquestionably benefits for the user or the internet surfer.
human
Give me essay about furthermore music piracy that is not stealing because it is a victimless crime. Is Music Piracy Stealing? only.
assistant
On the basis of the given article “Is Music Piracy Stealing” by Charles W. Moore, lets try to examine the problem and find whether the authors rhetoric is effectively supported or it is just a damage to the primary claim.
We live in the 21 th century; computer and internet technologies make much of our life, the means and opportunities they suggest are unquestionably benefits for the user or the internet surfer. The cloud of the article by Charles Moore is whether downloading music, software or some other kind of information as the intellectual property from internet resources is a benefit and the way to learn more or to take pleasure in some masterpiece or, violation of the law.
The article begins with the slogan “copying is stealing”. The slogan of the MPAA campaign is originally a statement of the Association that digital copying is the violation of the law equaled with the stealing crime. The rhetoric the author uses at the beginning of the article is quite strong and is a real status quo in the industry or better, in internet day life. Moore exemplifies the Pew survey on the real matter of fact of the problem being treated as the illegal infringement. It is obvious from the Pews survey as Moore cites it, that about 75% of the interviewer are unconcerned of the file they share copyright. As the majority of the interviewers groups express their slight awareness of the copyright, 65% of them show much carelessness for copyright. The ethos the author here use is out effectiveness query: “I don’t think very many folks are unaware that music is copy-10 righted, or that unauthorized copying is illegal. It’s just that, as the Pew survey indicates, they don’t care, just as most people in my experience suffer no ethical pangs about photocopying pages from reference books borrowed from the library, or song sheets for their church choir, or copyrighted materials to distribute to their school or college classes, all of which are just as illegal under copyright legislation as downloading pirate MP3s” (Moore 244). The author gives clear enough explanation of how the downloading files is treated and concerned by the audience. As the author goes on, the intellectual property piracy is the ethic issue which the most of the people do not bother much about. The logos in the form of question “So are we all thieves or not?” (Moore 244) is quite strong. And the answer suggested is awesome enough reflecting the logos, that is yes, that all we are. The facts Moore uses later are the weighty arguments to support the legal validity. It is now a kind of a government commerce that makes laws protecting vested interests, which in their part, possess political weight. The U.S. Constitution is based British Common Law, which according to the definition derives from the common people: “Common Law develops at the root levels of society, and is grounded in precedent and tradition as well as reason; it is not law that is imposed by some authority from on high” (Moore 248).
The triangle of the intellectual property copyright is per so: a creator of some piece of artwork , the author, a prospective customer, or someone who consumes it in his own manner and the medium between these two vast classes, and it is the entity with its vested interests, that is the recording company or rightholder or the publisher. And now it is the matter of morality, whose are the copyrights and who steps to defend them. The author gives the estimation of the day-life process of copying files and information for different reasons, and the unconcern of how it is treated legally.
As seen above, the authors affirmation are quite of good elocution. But the author s rhetoric is sometimes doubtful. If the aspects of the intellectual property copyright is the issue to apply the legal system and government, then Moores article being philosophically stipulated should have been researched through the principles of courtesy and morality, based on the psychology better than through the law remains of “draconian” era as he himself called it: “Copyright laws pertaining to music are especially draconian” (Moore 247). The legislative issues are probably old or the remnants of the old system but still it is a law.
Another, slightly unfavourable feature about authors rhetoric is his unawareness of the issue expressed in his own words: “I am no expert, but as I understand it, even quoting a few words or a phrase from the lyrics of a copyrighted song is illegal without permission, unlike prose, where fair use can run to hundreds of words” (Moore 247). And here is where the authors reasons are of some question and evidently they are weak. And it is not the only time when Moores arguments are slight, this excerpt underlines it: “Personally music piracy is not a big part of my life. Like many people with a computer and an Internet hookup, I experimented with downloading MP3s during the Napster era, but didn’t do a whole lot of it” (Moore 244).
human
Add another sentence about Moore.
assistant
On the basis of the given article “Is Music Piracy Stealing” by Charles W. Moore, lets try to examine the problem and find whether the authors rhetoric is effectively supported or it is just a damage to the primary claim. 
We live in the 21 th century; computer and internet technologies make much of our life, the means and opportunities they suggest are unquestionably benefits for the user or the internet surfer. The cloud of the article by Charles Moore is whether downloading music, software or some other kind of information as the intellectual property from internet resources is a benefit and the way to learn more or to take pleasure in some masterpiece or, violation of the law. 
The article begins with the slogan “copying is stealing”. The slogan of the MPAA campaign is originally a statement of the Association that digital copying is the violation of the law equaled with the stealing crime. The rhetoric the author uses at the beginning of the article is quite strong and is a real status quo in the industry or better, in internet day life. Moore exemplifies the Pew survey on the real matter of fact of the problem being treated as the illegal infringement. It is obvious from the Pews survey as Moore cites it, that about 75% of the interviewer are unconcerned of the file they share copyright. As the majority of the interviewers groups express their slight awareness of the copyright, 65% of them show much carelessness for copyright. The ethos the author here use is out effectiveness query: “I don’t think very many folks are unaware that music is copy-10 righted, or that unauthorized copying is illegal. It’s just that, as the Pew survey indicates, they don’t care, just as most people in my experience suffer no ethical pangs about photocopying pages from reference books borrowed from the library, or song sheets for their church choir, or copyrighted materials to distribute to their school or college classes, all of which are just as illegal under copyright legislation as downloading pirate MP3s” (Moore 244). The author gives clear enough explanation of how the downloading files is treated and concerned by the audience. As the author goes on, the intellectual property piracy is the ethic issue which the most of the people do not bother much about. The logos in the form of question “So are we all thieves or not?” (Moore 244) is quite strong. And the answer suggested is awesome enough reflecting the logos, that is yes, that all we are. 
But the main point to round about as per Moore is the philosophy of the issue more than its legitimacy. The facts Moore uses later are the weighty arguments to support the legal validity. It is now a kind of a government commerce that makes laws protecting vested interests, which in their part, possess political weight. The U. S. Constitution is based British Common Law, which according to the definition derives from the common people: “Common Law develops at the root levels of society, and is grounded in precedent and tradition as well as reason; it is not law that is imposed by some authority from on high” (Moore 248). 
The triangle of the intellectual property copyright is per so: a creator of some piece of artwork , the author, a prospective customer, or someone who consumes it in his own manner and the medium between these two vast classes, and it is the entity with its vested interests, that is the recording company or rightholder or the publisher. And now it is the matter of morality, whose are the copyrights and who steps to defend them. The author gives the estimation of the day-life process of copying files and information for different reasons, and the unconcern of how it is treated legally. 
As seen above, the authors affirmation are quite of good elocution. But the author s rhetoric is sometimes doubtful. If the aspects of the intellectual property copyright is the issue to apply the legal system and government, then Moores article being philosophically stipulated should have been researched through the principles of courtesy and morality, based on the psychology better than through the law remains of “draconian” era as he himself called it: “Copyright laws pertaining to music are especially draconian” (Moore 247). The legislative issues are probably old or the remnants of the old system but still it is a law. 
Another, slightly unfavourable feature about authors rhetoric is his unawareness of the issue expressed in his own words: “I am no expert, but as I understand it, even quoting a few words or a phrase from the lyrics of a copyrighted song is illegal without permission, unlike prose, where fair use can run to hundreds of words” (Moore 247). And here is where the authors reasons are of some question and evidently they are weak. And it is not the only time when Moores arguments are slight, this excerpt underlines it: “Personally music piracy is not a big part of my life. Like many people with a computer and an Internet hookup, I experimented with downloading MP3s during the Napster era, but didn’t do a whole lot of it” (Moore 244).
human
Give me Is Music Piracy Stealing?” gives cover all point on the downloading and uploading files, file swam and the philosophic point of the problem. The author advances the arguments to back up his research wit h the latest political trends led to make copyright more strict, but still, only from Congress part. section.
assistant
The intellectual property copyright law is getting extraneous in practical terms. Recording and distributing companies, publishers will never regain tight over all industry control, they once possessed. And no matter how many laws they will lobby.
human
Give me Introduction section.
assistant
Do you like arts? Painting and literature, probably Monet is your best impressionism representative or “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy is ones reference book. But besides that, architecture is the most admirable art or music is the most and best listenable.
These are far from the total list of the means by which the authors of the latter are interesting for. And through the centuries on, the ways to express the view spring up the points they touch upon are the mostly like to appear, and they do.
The 21 th century is the era of new technologies, high technologies, good technologies and effective ways of obtaining of corporate interests by any means. So back to the beginning of the essay, there is a re-query: do you like arts? For example music, and, through the prism of the modern legislation system and modern music, is there any source to take pleasure of it?
human
Conclusion
assistant
To sum up, Moores article “
human
Put it all togegther in the right order.
assistant
##Introduction
Do you like arts? Painting and literature, probably Monet is your best impressionism representative or “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy is ones reference book. But besides that, architecture is the most admirable art or music is the most and best listenable.
These are far from the total list of the means by which the authors of the latter are interesting for. And through the centuries on, the ways to express the view spring up the points they touch upon are the mostly like to appear, and they do.
The 21 th century is the era of new technologies, high technologies, good technologies and effective ways of obtaining of corporate interests by any means. So back to the beginning of the essay, there is a re-query: do you like arts? For example music, and, through the prism of the modern legislation system and modern music, is there any source to take pleasure of it?
##Is Music Piracy Stealing?
On the basis of the given article “Is Music Piracy Stealing” by Charles W. Moore, lets try to examine the problem and find whether the authors rhetoric is effectively supported or it is just a damage to the primary claim.
We live in the 21 th century; computer and internet technologies make much of our life, the means and opportunities they suggest are unquestionably benefits for the user or the internet surfer. The cloud of the article by Charles Moore is whether downloading music, software or some other kind of information as the intellectual property from internet resources is a benefit and the way to learn more or to take pleasure in some masterpiece or, violation of the law.
The article begins with the slogan “copying is stealing”. The slogan of the MPAA campaign is originally a statement of the Association that digital copying is the violation of the law equaled with the stealing crime. The rhetoric the author uses at the beginning of the article is quite strong and is a real status quo in the industry or better, in internet day life. Moore exemplifies the Pew survey on the real matter of fact of the problem being treated as the illegal infringement. It is obvious from the Pews survey as Moore cites it, that about 75% of the interviewer are unconcerned of the file they share copyright. As the majority of the interviewers groups express their slight awareness of the copyright, 65% of them show much carelessness for copyright. The ethos the author here use is out effectiveness query: “I don’t think very many folks are unaware that music is copy-10 righted, or that unauthorized copying is illegal. It’s just that, as the Pew survey indicates, they don’t care, just as most people in my experience suffer no ethical pangs about photocopying pages from reference books borrowed from the library, or song sheets for their church choir, or copyrighted materials to distribute to their school or college classes, all of which are just as illegal under copyright legislation as downloading pirate MP3s” (Moore 244). The author gives clear enough explanation of how the downloading files is treated and concerned by the audience. As the author goes on, the intellectual property piracy is the ethic issue which the most of the people do not bother much about. The logos in the form of question “So are we all thieves or not?” (Moore 244) is quite strong. And the answer suggested is awesome enough reflecting the logos, that is yes, that all we are.
But the main point to round about as per Moore is the philosophy of the issue more than its legitimacy. The facts Moore uses later are the weighty arguments to support the legal validity. It is now a kind of a government commerce that makes laws protecting vested interests, which in their part, possess political weight. The U.S. Constitution is based British Common Law, which according to the definition derives from the common people: “Common Law develops at the root levels of society, and is grounded in precedent and tradition as well as reason; it is not law that is imposed by some authority from on high” (Moore 248).
The triangle of the intellectual property copyright is per so: a creator of some piece of artwork , the author, a prospective customer, or someone who consumes it in his own manner and the medium between these two vast classes, and it is the entity with its vested interests, that is the recording company or rightholder or the publisher. And now it is the matter of morality, whose are the copyrights and who steps to defend them. The author gives the estimation of the day-life process of copying files and information for different reasons, and the unconcern of how it is treated legally.
As seen above, the authors affirmation are quite of good elocution. But the author s rhetoric is sometimes doubtful. If the aspects of the intellectual property copyright is the issue to apply the legal system and government, then Moores article being philosophically stipulated should have been researched through the principles of courtesy and morality, based on the psychology better than through the law remains of “draconian” era as he himself called it: “Copyright laws pertaining to music are especially draconian” (Moore 247). The legislative issues are probably old or the remnants of the old system but still it is a law.
Another, slightly unfavourable feature about authors rhetoric is his unawareness of the issue expressed in his own words: “I am no expert, but as I understand it, even quoting a few words or a phrase from the lyrics of a copyrighted song is illegal without permission, unlike prose, where fair use can run to hundreds of words” (Moore 247). And here is where the authors reasons are of some question and evidently they are weak. And it is not the only time when Moores arguments are slight, this excerpt underlines it: “Personally music piracy is not a big part of my life. Like many people with a computer and an Internet hookup, I experimented with downloading MP3s during the Napster era, but didn’t do a whole lot of it” (Moore 244).
##Conclusion
To sum up, Moores article “ ##Is Music Piracy Stealing?” gives cover all point on the downloading and uploading files, file swam and the philosophic point of the problem. The author advances the arguments to back up his research wit h the latest political trends led to make copyright more strict, but still, only from Congress part.
The intellectual property copyright law is getting extraneous in practical terms. Recording and distributing companies, publishers will never regain tight over all industry control, they once possessed. And no matter how many laws they will lobby.