Recent orders
Poverty In The United States
Poverty In The United States
The United States, though being a super power, poverty still persists. It is unbelievable to see The U.S top the chat of having a high rate of poverty among the most developed countries in the world. The Government always put measures to eradicate poverty but it has not been fully successful. Statistics shows that even during economic boom, poverty rate is only reduced but not eradicated completely. This shows that poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature whereby it rotates around 13 and 17%. According to the Census Bureau, poverty rate in the U.S is estimated to be at 13.2%.
Defining poverty is complex as it involves a lot of considerations. Generally, it is based on individual money income compared to the standard of living of a given country. In the United States, the government uses two sets of poverty measurement namely poverty threshold and poverty guidelines. Poverty threshold regards poverty as having insufficient income to afford the goods and services that the majority in the society takes for granted. Poverty guidelines determine whether one qualifies for assistance from the government or not. The government puts an annual income of $16530 as the poverty threshold.
Hispanic and the African-Americans are the groups with the highest poverty rate with each group having 23.2% and 24.7% respectively. This shows that poverty is rampant among the minorities group in the United States. Poverty is also varies with age. It said that around 58% of the total population lives at least one year under the poverty line between the age of twenty five and seventy five years. In the family, poverty rate is higher in a single parent family compared to two parents. Single mothers are the most affected ones. In integrating family and race or ethnicity it is also shows that families of Hispanic and African-Americans also top the chat of having high poverty rates.
Causes of poverty are complicated as just as understanding poverty. It is not clear who or what causes poverty especially looking poverty in a sociological point of view. There is the perspective that the poor themselves are the cause of their own poverty. This contradicts their own belief that poverty is caused by either the government or the rich so as to continue to rule over them. This result to what the sociologist term as “a culture of poverty”, where by the poor have little concern of coming out of poverty. As a result of this the poor regard themselves the disadvantaged, inferior, hopeless, and helpless. These characteristics are passes from generation to generation.
Looking at unemployment as being a major cause of poverty, it has also its causes. The unemployed are grouped into different types, from those who are willing to work, to those who do not up to those who are fully qualified but no jobs. The limiting factors also exists that can highly contribute to why poverty can be analyzed in stereotypic perspective. Race for an example can be a reason why one gets employment or not. This is what characterizes the distribution of poverty in the United States where the minorities’ races are leading in the poverty chat.
Education has also contributed to explaining the causes of poverty. Lack of education or minimal education has contributed to increase in poverty. Education can be looked in two different perspectives. One is lack of access of education among the poor, whereby the poor cannot afford money to go to school or further his or her studies. This makes them disadvantageous in getting jobs that are well paying, that is why the poor continue being poor through generation to generation. Another perspective can involve people who had an opportunity to go to school but drop out and gave up with education. These people end up being poor due to lack of employment or skills.
In the United States the welfare payment has also made some people consider living under the poverty line so as to continue receiving the welfare. This is greatly witnessed in the inner cities where the poor prefer receiving the welfare payments to work in jobs that have minimum wages like being maids in restaurant or attendants in a supermarket. Other causes of poverty include separation or divorce in a marriage, early pregnancies or addiction to drugs. This is why most single parent especially the single mothers languish in poverty as most cannot afford to feed the whole family by herself.
Poverty has severe effects especially to children who grow up in poverty. Children are deemed to be very vulnerable to be affected with poverty more health wise. Children born under poverty are likely to be under weight which leads to various disabilities and frequent ailments. This is the cause of a high child mortality rate among the poor people. Children education is also compromised with the conditions that are associated with poverty like poor health, lack of fees and proper guidelines on what is best for them (Rector and Kirk).
The constraints and hard life poor people face stress them a lot. This greatly affects the elderly who the responsibility of the family falls for. In effect it leads to diseases that are associated with stress like high blood pressure, heart attack and to some extended committing suicide becomes an option. Stress also is also closely related to depression. Depression leads to violence in the family and even in the neighborhood. Violence is evident in the ghettos where poverty rate is high.
Criminal activity is also highly associated with poverty. People who face hard economic times turn to crime as the source of income. Homelessness is an extreme effect of poverty. Being homeless is a worst scenario one goes through. This is associated with lack of proper nutrition, health problems, depression, discrimination and many more negative effects.
Poverty can only be reduced but not completely eradicated. The complexity of poverty makes it impossible for it to be eradicated. Efforts have ever since been put to eradicate poverty. The Federal Government and other nongovernmental organization are always on the fore front in fighting poverty. Poverty eradication campaigns have been in force especially targeting specific groups like the Hispanic or the Blacks. Education has been a key issue in fighting poverty. Education equips one with the skills and knowledge to enable him or her to get employment, thus raising his or her standard of living.
Legislation of laws that provide equity, charities, and community organizing are among other measures that can be taken to alleviate poverty. Fighting poverty is usually seen as a government task. This has not been that effective because there are things that the government cannot provide at all times like guidance and counseling. Thus, fighting poverty is a collective task that involves everyone in the society; the rich, the middle class together with the poor, as the government and nongovernmental organization comes in as a boost of the collective effort.
References
Rector, R. E. and Kirk, A. J, Understanding Poverty in America. The Heritage Foundation.Retrieved December 4, 2010, fromhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
U. S. Census. (2009). Income, Expenditures, Poverty and Wealth. (PDF). Retrieved December 4,2010, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/income.pdf.
The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
Name:
Institution:
The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
Thesis
The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) is an ineffective and redundant law that fails to have an impact towards the fight against piracy.
Copyright was intended to accord makers of original work exclusive rights over the use and distribution of their work. In the United States, the copyright extends even after the death of its creator. Copyright law should therefore be an incentive to innovators because it rewarded them for their innovations with exclusive rights, such as charges and use of their work.
Background
Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act to the Senate in United States on 25th January 2005. It was signed into law on 27th April 2005. The FECA consists of two main parts, the Artists Rights and Theft Prevention Act and the second part is the Family Movie Act (Donaldson, 2010).
Definition of the law and lintels
Artists Rights and Theft Prevention Act
The Act makes it a criminal offence to engage in some forms of piracy, which have the effect of undercutting the primary impact of works of entertainment that have been released for profit. This part of the Act generates two federal copyright offices, the first offence is projected to discourage camcorder piracy; an act of recording newly released movies during their maiden play in movie theatres and later the recordings are reproduced as different versions of the movies. The punishment for knowingly recording such movies is three years imprisonment for first offenders and subsequent offenders face six-year jail term.
The second offence created is pre released piracy also identified as camcorder piracy, as was evident when the print format of Star Wars was availed on sharing networks, allegedly released by an industry insider on a similar day as it was premiered. Distribution of work through computer networks to members of the public under preparation for business related distribution is an offence punishable by an imprisonment term of three years for first offenders and ten years for succeeding offenders.
The Family Movie Act, 2005
This part of the Act removes liability from technologies by third parties that primarily remove objectionable content from played at home movies. The act prohibits the creation of a new hard copy of a movie even if the clip will include some censored parts. The technology used also illegalizes insertion of audio or video content on an original work.
Influential court cases
Lennon v. Premise Media Corp
EMI Group and Yoko Ono sued a filmmaker of documentaries for the use of a clip extracted from the song ‘Imagine’ by John Lennon. The clip ran for fifteen minutes and was used as a critique of the lyrics. The issue in contention was whether the film ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ looked at components of freedom of speech, science and faith by implying that the message of nonexistence of religion in a society had the possibility of dire consequences socially. Producers of the film were sued in both federal and state courts. It was held that the use of the song, though copyrighted amounted to fair use.
Elektra Entertainment Group v. Santangelo and Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas
In the year 2005, the RIAA filed a suit for copyright infringement against Patti Santangelo. The basis of the case was evidence collected by Media Sentry consisting of screenshots, shared folder and an IP address used at the time of the infringement of the copyright. It turned out that her teenage son and daughter were implicated and a subsequent suit was filed against them. The question before the court was whether the act of ‘making available’ constituted a copyright infringement as the files could later be accessed and downloaded by other people.
The court was conflicted on whether there was an existing right of making available, however, the judge ordered a new trial after his finding that such a right was nonexistent in America. The right is however available internationally and the National Music Publishers Association supported the existence of that right.
Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp., reversing Twentieth Century Fox v. Cablevision Systems Corp
To reduce costs of technology deployment, Cablevision recorded videos on isolated resources and purchased storage for the least price. In order to prevent copyright infringement, copies of the videos were aired through buffers for less than two seconds. The company was sued for direct infringement of copyright. The court held that the 1.2 seconds of infringement were transitory, and hence too short to constitute actual copyright infringement.
Io Group Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., and UMG Recordings, Inc v. Veoh Networks Inc
Veoh, a network that allowed users to share videos, Universal Music Group promoted artistes and Io group specialized on pornography. Users consistently uploaded content created by Universal group, which were taken down upon issuance of a notice, but the same videos would later resurface on the Veoh and a notice had to be issued afresh. A suit against Veoh was filed and the court ruled that hosting immunity put forward by Veoh such as termination of user accounts that uploaded pornographic content absolved them from any infringement as per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Inadequacies
Redundancy with other Copyright laws.
As put forward by Hilmes (2011) the laws joined a large number of previously enacted laws, numbering more than fifteen that had since expanded over a period of years. The redundancy was often raised after questions of widespread infringement were brought out which purportedly envisioned the destruction of the industry. Similarly, the laws were merely created out of moral panic twisted by players in the industry; use those panics as a reason for absolute necessity for more redundant laws.
FECA made it an offence to produce and distribute a movie prior to its pre release. It illegalized recording of commercial movies during their premiere in theatres and releasing movies in print format as was the case in Star Wars. The act does not venture into other aspects of release, such as post release illegal distribution (Hilmes, 2011).
Federal Authorities aren’t as eager to prosecute
The Act came up with new criminal sanctions for the use of devices such as camcorders to record and copy movies while being watched in movie theatres. The Act further created penalties that involve disclosure of work that has not been officially released. The authorities on the other hand are slow to prosecute such cases even as section 167 of the Act provided additional useful elements that may be used to secure a conviction based on some infringements. The elements of the offence were not clear cut as the act of carrying a recording device into the theatre was not an offence.
Adequacies
While the No Electronic Theft Act (NET) criminalized the act of reproduction and distribution of copies of movies, FECA on the other hand was only applicable to pre released DVDs. The application of both pieces of legislation filled any loopholes previously existing in the law relating to copyright and resulted in a more compact protection of copyright by statutes.
FECA specifically gave protection to new technology, such as Clear play Inc; that offered services that caused DVD players to pass over sexually explicit or violent scenes or to automatically mute offensive content. With passage of the bill into law, similar suits that had been filed by the movie industry and termed services by Clear play as unauthorized editing were dismissed (Jeremiah Films, Inc., 2012).
Proposed changes
Creating a balanced copyright restriction model
A balanced copyright restriction model will publicly unify the common global ideology that knowledge and intellectual property ought to be considered as private property with the ability to trade in a typical capitalist market. The owners of such copyrights will get exclusive rights over their property, and the fair use principle will incorporate equality to the owners as well. In the long run, the advancement of very strict copyright regimes will ensure that there is an incentive to maintain creativity, a benefit to not only the United States, but the entire world.
Copyright Reform Act
The Act was legislation with proposed changes to copyright law that will favour the constitutional authorization that the protection of copyright is a tool towards the progression of science and useful art. It will also increase public knowledge, a useful feature of a balanced copyright system.
Conclusion
According to Katsh (2013) copyright was intended to accord makers of original work exclusive rights over the use and distribution of the work, in the United States, the copyright extends even after the death of its creator. Copyright law should therefore facilitate the role of an incentive to innovators because it rewarded them for their innovations with exclusive rights, such as charges and use of their work.
FACA that was enacted in 2005 joined a list of other redundant laws on copyright because its prohibition of piracy has not been fully achieved up to date. It criminalized copying and otherwise distribution of movies, however, owing to the slow rate of implementation, the piece of legislation, just like the previous ones like Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and subsequent Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008 are yet to realize their full mandate even as more laws get enacted.
References
Donaldson, M. C. (2010). Clearance & copyright: Everything the independent filmmaker needs to know. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.
Hilmes, M. (2011). Only connect: A cultural history of broadcasting in the United States. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Jeremiah Films, Inc. (2012). Death by entertainment. Hemet, CA: Jeremiah Films.
Katsh, M. E. (2013). Taking sides. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
United States. (2010). Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O.
The fallacy of Damnation and its corresponding Cardinal Virtue
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
The fallacy of Damnation and its corresponding Cardinal Virtue
The fallacy of damnation is built around the idea that when an individual has a feeling that something is wrong with him or herself or when one has a feeling that somebody else has a problem, it means that individual or the person he or she feels has a problem must be worthless (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous, 123). The fallacy goes further to ask questions such as: at what point does one conclude that another person is worthless? Is it right to criticize somebody who performs evil actions simply because one wants him or her to change their behavior? Is it right to compel somebody to do what one thinks is the better way of behaving? Is it right to criticize somebody just out of anger by using his or her wrong behavior as an excuse? The corresponding cardinal virtue for Damnation fallacy is prudence, which is all about prudence. It guides people to decide between right and wrong, given any particular situation.
Kant’s Deontology as an ethical theory
This ethical theory was formulated by Immanuel Kant. It is considered deontological due to a number of reasons. The first reason is that Kant argues that for an individual to behave in a manner that is morally right, he or she must act out of some duty. Kant also argued that it is not as a result of people’s actions that make them wrong or right but as a result of the intentions of their actions. Kant argued that morality is prescriptive. His ethical theory is very vital in the sense that it helps people to know which actions are their duties and which ones are forbidden. Moral statements are very categorical in the sense that they can prescribe actions in spite of their results (Barber, 96). A hypothetical imperative does not demand or prescribe any action. He argues that people should never be used as a means of getting to an end since they are moral being who require human treatment.
How Kant’s theory can serve as an effective antidote for the fallacy of Damnation
The theory of damnation is all about treating people with high morals and avoiding to judge others for what they do just based on perceptions. According to Feinberg, John, Paul D, and Aldous (98), people should never become personal with others to the point of revenging on them under the pretext of correcting their wrong behaviors. They should rather treat others based on moral principles since this would give them the wisdom of telling between right and wrong. What Kant’s theory stands for is not very different from the principles of fallacy of Damnation. Kant says that humans are at the highest point of creation and are rational. They for that matter demand unique and equal treatment. Kant further says that one person’s happiness should never be promoted at the expense of another person’s. People should treat others how they expect to be treated.
The fallacy of Jumping on the Bandwagon and its corresponding cardinal virtue
Bandwagon fallacy is a situation whereby people tend to change their views concerning something irrespective of whether they are factual or not and join the views of the majority to avoid being considered the odd ones out. It has the simple belief that “being that everybody is doing it (or thinking it or saying it); you should also be doing it”. The fallacy argues that the majority is all times right and if a majority is doing something, then, any other individual should be doing it, being that he or she will be part of the majority, which is always right. The argument may be problematic because the premise stating that “the majority is always right” cannot be said to be true (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous 79). The phrase appears stupid and very few people would admit falling for it but it is an easy trap that people would not realize they get into. It is a bandwagon that very few individuals would realize they are jumping into. The cardinal virtue associated with this fallacy is that of justice since it is concerned with the will. People should have their personal opinions listened to without being subjected to the will of the majority.
Sartre’s Existentialistic Ethics
The main concept in this ethical theory, as brought out by Sartre, is that existence precedes essence; subjectivity is the beginning of ethics. Sartre says that anything that is human essence only comes after human beings have existed and have made their choices. This is an ethical theory that is radically different from other theories previously encountered. It is not as prescriptive as other theories such as those of Kant and Aristotle; it rather makes comments towards the nature of ethics. Existentialism ethics are created by man, they can never exist without being created by man. According to Barber (102), if at all God created humans for a purpose then they have some essence. Humans have a purpose before they are born. But Sartre argues that there is no God and humans cannot have essence before they begin to exist. He writes from an atheistic point of view and makes people wonder if there is any essence of ethics without God.
Why Sartre’s theory serves an effective antidote for the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon
Feinberg, Paul, and Aldous (123) have the opinion that fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon majorly dwells on the idea of being influenced by peer influence to follow whatever the majority is doing even if it is not right, while Sartre’s theory talks about the essence of ethics and how human existence is significant in the formation of any ethics. Sartre’s theory becomes an effective anecdote for the Bandwagon fallacy because it talks about human nature and human behavior and what affects ethics, which is much related to Bandwagon’s aspect of acting as a majority to influence ethics and human behavior. Sartre has the opinion that human beings have a purpose for existence and should for that matter create their own ethics and behavior without having to follow the majority.
The fallacy of Jumping on the Bandwagon and its corresponding cardinal virtue
The fallacy of Bandwagon fallacy is a situation whereby people tend to change their views concerning something irrespective of whether they are factual or not and join the views of the majority to avoid being considered the odd one out. It has the simple belief that “being that everybody is doing it (or thinking it or saying it); you should also be doing it”. The fallacy argues that the majority is all the times right and if a majority is doing something, then, any other individual should be doing it since he or she will be part of the majority, which is always right. The argument may be problematic because the premise stating that “the majority is always right” cannot be said to be true (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous, 112). The phrase appears stupid and very few people would admit falling for it but it is an easy trap that people would not realize they get into. It is a bandwagon that very few individuals would realize they are jumping into. The cardinal virtue associated with this fallacy is that of justice since it is concerned with the will. People should have their personal opinions listened to without being subjected to follow the will of the majority.
Mill’s on Liberty
This is a philosophical work that was developed by John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher. It applies Mill’s ethical principles of utilitarianism to the state and the society. Mill seeks to explain the standards for the relationship existing between liberty and authority. He tries to emphasize the significance of individuality, which is considered as a prerequisite for high pleasures. Mills also attempts to criticize the aspect of “tyranny of the majority” in his attempts to defend individualism. His works revolve around the fundamental liberties of individuals, legitimate objections to any form of government intervention, and the relationships existing between an individual and the society. This theory is about the struggle between liberty and authority. Mill says that the tyranny of the government should be controlled by the citizens’ liberties. He has the belief that control of the authority should be divided into two mechanisms: the necessary rights of the citizens, and the establishment of constitutional control mechanisms in relation to the consent of the whole community. According to Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous (98), there should be a sort of representative body to express the interests of the society in the governing power. Mill proposes that it is important for individuals to be left to rule or control themselves; the society should be immune to tyranny.
How Mill’s position in On Liberty servers as an effective antidote for the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon
Mill’s On Liberty is very effective in the sense that it mainly advocates for individualism rather than tyranny or following a majority. It has the belief that individuals are rational beings and should be left to make their own decisions and control themselves. Mills argues that individuals should have liberty and not subjected by the authority to do things against their will. In relation to the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon, Mill argues that the tyranny of numbers or the majority should never be left to influence or dictate individual interests. Barber (99) says that individuals should never be scared to stand for what they think is right simply because they are not part of the majority; majority is not always right, as believed.
Works Cited
Barber, Sotirios A. The Fallacies of States’ Rights. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2013. Internet resource.
Feinberg, John S, Paul D. Feinberg, and Aldous Huxley. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010. Print.