` Laddish 1

Mandy Laddish

Dr. Dietel-McLaughlin

First Year Composition: 103100

September 29, 2010

TITLE

Digital technology is striking a large amount of controversy throughout society. Critics

argue wether or not the vast availability of technology is hindering the minds, creativity and

culture of our future leaders. Others claim the wide range of laws are enabling our younger

generation from expressing their creativity, which is in turn causing them to become more

susceptible to break the law. In his article, “Web 2.0,” Andrew Keen raises the question; is free

use of creative technological amateurism dangerous for the exuberance of culture and the arts? In

the article “In Defense of Piracy,” by Lawrence Lessig, he counter-argues that placing strict laws

on copywriting hinders the ability of our children's creativity to flow, and enables them to

become aquatinted with criminal activity. While Lessig provides a strong appeal to logos to

support his argument towards decriminalizing our children and deregulating copyright laws,

Keens’ usage of satire makes his argument for consequences of seductive technologies more

captivating to his audience.

Lawrence Lessig begins his article, “In Defense of Piracy” with an appeal to pathos, by

sharing Stephanie Lenz’s story. Mrs. Lenz found her way to the Electronic Frontier Foundation

after she was forced to take down a video of her 13-month old dancing to a song by Prince, for

copyright reasons. She pressed the question of whether this was a fair gesture because there was

no plausible way Universal or Prince were financially damaged by her video. Lessig comes

across cases like this one religiously and believes something must be changed. “We could reject
` Laddish 2

the notion that Internet culture must oppose profit and must destroy Internet culture. Real change

will be necessary if this is to be our future--changes in law, and changes in us” (Lessig). He

continues by persuading his audience that this “copyright war” is hindering the creativity in our

children and causing them to become criminals. He provides readers with five changes that if

made, could possibly end the file sharing confrontation; deregulate amateur remix, deregulate

“the copy”, simplify laws, restore efficiency of laws, and decriminalize generation-x (Lessig). He

concludes with an appeal to logos to support each change he believes should be made.

Mainly Lessigs arguments produce their rhetorical effectiveness from credible evidence

established by the law firm known as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Evidence is essential in

capturing the audiences attention and gaining their sympathy while trying to persuade their

views. He is careful to use examples that show compassion towards readers who have strong

family values, and those with sympathetic feelings towards children. His most prominent

example is the court case of Stephanie Lenz who was forced to remove a video off of You Tube

after Universal claimed the music which it contained was copyrighted. “ The Electronic Frontier

Foundation’s lawyers thought this was a straight forward case of fair use. Mrs. Lenz consulted

the EFF and filed a ‘counter notice’ to YouTube, arguing that no rights of universal were violated

by Holden’s dance” (Lessig). Lessigs use of factual data, relating to court cases, provides the

audience with a credible source and an effective use of ethos. He knows that by showing a law

firm was involved, many people in the audience will respect the lawmakers decisions.

Lessig tackles a second rhetorical strategy by proving to his audience he is a trustworthy,

former associate of a credible law firm that deals with technological cases. Establishing ethos is

important when capturing the attention of certain audiences because some intelligent audiences

will second guess certain things. He initiates his reputation when he states: “[Stephanie Lenz]
` Laddish 3

pressed that question through a number of channels until it found its way to the Electronic

Frontier Foundation (on whose board I sat until the beginning of 2008)” (Lessig). This statement

provides the audience with Lessigs credibility. The quote reveals that he has handled situations

like this one before as a board member EFF, who specializes in cases like Mrs. Lenz’s. It shows

that he is a veteran with inside access, and not a critic looking in and arguing from the outside.

One of Lessigs stronger rhetorical devices is his presence of emotion in his paper which

is displayed through his narratives and his appeal for children. By revealing the story of

Stephanie Lenz he captures the attention of readers who relate to her situation. He also argues

that children today are forced to become criminals if they want to express their creativity online.

Now our children are apart of the “copyright war” and our children are the terrorists. “Peer-to-

peer file sharing is the enemy in the ‘copyright wars.’ Kids ‘stealing’ stuff with a computer are

the target” (Lessig). His sarcastic tone reaches out to the audience, attempting to show that

children should not be criminalized, rather decriminalized with a change in the copyright policy.

In his article, Web 2.0, Andrew Keen, argues that modern people today are far less nimble

at resisting the seductive qualities of technology. He claims that the new Web 2.0 era gives every

citizen a chance to be an opinionated artist or writer, which is radically democratizing culture. He

explains that Web 2.0 is a movement that, “worships the creative amateur, the self-taught film

maker, the dorm-room musician, and unpublished writer” (Keen). Keen then compares this “Web

2.0 cult” with Marx, and how he seduced European idealists with his fantasy of self-realization

in a communist utopia. After he uses satire to establish ethos he begins to focus on the

consequences of the Web 2.0 movement. He intently believes that the vitality of the arts, and our

culture, is in danger. Access to technology personalizes culture which “reflects ourselves and not

the culture around us” (Keen). Apple, Google, and Craigslist are especially personalizing our
` Laddish 4

culture by the way we entertain ourselves and our habits that define who we are. Keen concludes

with a bold statement about living without elite mainstream media. Claiming that once it is

overpowered and forgotten we will lose memory of things we have experienced, learnt, and read.

Andrew Keen’s rhetorical potency is established when he captures his audiences attention

with the use of humor and satire. His establishment of pathos leaves the audience with a sense of

his character causing the reader to become more engaged in the article. Keen jokes that,

“Empowered by this [Web 2.0] technology, we will be able to write in the morning, direct

movies in the afternoon, and make music in the evening” (Keen). Technology is allowing

amateurs to attempt in one day what professionals have been trying to perfect for years. At one

point he claims that Apple, Google, and Craigslist are “revolutionizing our cultural habits”

(Keen) which in turn causes traditional media, like newspapers, to be destroyed by digitized

publishing. Keen even describes Network Television to be the “modern equivalent of a

dinosaur.”

Keen is effective at reasoning with his audience, providing them with multiple objectives,

aiming to prove Web 2.0 is degrading our cultural society. Concluding that the this technology

nightmare is not the scarcity, but the over abundance of authors. “Since everyone will use digital

media to express themselves, the only decisive act will be to not mark the paper” (Keen). He

claims that eventually it will be rebellious to not construct a writing because of the future

consequences of Web 2.0; everyone is an author, while no one is left to be an audience.

Keen establishes a strong sense of logos by quoting historical experts on cultural society

and the development of seductive technologies. He begins by relating his argument to Socrates

views of protecting citizens from the seductive opinions of artists and writers in his time, stating

that our society has been seduced by technology. He later supports this claim with a different
` Laddish 5

quote from Franz Kafka: “I have no memory for things I have learned...read...experienced or

heard..for people nor events; I feel that I have experienced nothing, learned nothing, that I

actually know nothing... and what I do know is superficial...I am incapable of of thinking

deliberately; my thoughts run into a wall. I can grasp the essence of things in isolation, but I am

quite incapable of coherent, unbroken thinking. I can’t even tell a story properly; in fact, I can

scarcely talk” (Keen). Society has been greatly seduced by democratized content in mainstream

media and authentic online communities and without it we would lose memory of any form of

foundation in education, experiences or even things heard (Keen). It is important to use this

particular rhetorical device to show the audience that this type of event was well anticipated, and

has been happening for multiple years with many different technologies.

While Lessigs establishes a strong sense pathos and ethos in his article, his paper is

lacking in an effective use of logos. He doesn’t provide the audience with facts or data, his

primary focus is on storytelling and appealing to emotion. Because his audience is aimed

towards lawmakers, adding statistics would greatly improve his argument. Keen, on the other

hand, does have an appeal to logos but lacks a counter-argument. He never points out any of the

positive aspects of Web 2.0, only the negative. Therefore, his paper seems very biased, and only

appeals to a select audience.

Some may argue that while Andrew Keens foundation of pathos in the form of humor and

satire is compelling to a broad audience, Lessig’s use of a narrative and appeal to emotion is

more effective in capturing his audiences attention and persuading them to agree with his

argument. Some may prefer the narrative, claiming “Web 2.0” is biased, which can ultimately be

offensive to some audiences.

` Laddish 6

Andrew Keen and Lawrence Lessig both provide convincing arguments and both produce

powerful examples of rhetorical devices. Keens use of pathos is compelling to his targeted

audience because it makes his paper entertaining, while establishing a comical tone. However,

Lessig’s appeal to logos greatly supports his claim that copyright laws should be made lenient,

and his use of credible sources and reasoning capture the attention of his intended audience.

Keen attracts a broad audience while Lessig is mainly targeting lawmakers with strong family

values, therefore, “Web 2.0” would be a stronger article to incorporate in the next version of

“They Say I Say” because it is attractive to multiple types of audiences.

` Laddish 7

Works Cited

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0.” Weeklystandard.com. Weekly Standard. 15 Feb 2006. Web. 15

Sep 2010.

Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” WallStreetJournal.com. Dow Jones and

Company.11 Oct 2008. Web. 22 Sep 2010.