Ideas that should be Laws
Posted September 24, 2010on:
Most of the United States population acquires the music they own by purchasing it and downloading it from various online vendors. These vendors include Itunes, Amazon.com, Rhapsody, Napster, and other websites. Unfortunately, the way these vendors format their music often gives them an unfair advantage, and creates inconvenience for the consumers. Websites such as ITunes sell music in a format that is only compatible with Ipods, ITunes, and Apple products. I think that there should be a law enforcing that all music should be bought and sold in one universal format that is compatible with all music-playing devices. Websites such as Amazon.com, Rhapsody, and other vendors already do this, but ITunes and Napster do not.
ITunes currently monopolizes the music industry; most people who buy songs or albums purchase them from ITunes because it is convenient, easy to use, and updated frequently. However, songs that are bought on ITunes can only be transferred from computers onto Apple products such as IPods. They cannot be listened to on traditional MP3 players that do not run on Apple software, such as Zunes or Sandisks. This encourages consumers to purchase apple products rather than music devices produced by other companies, which allows Apple to monopolize the music industry. It also gives Apple an unfair advantage in the music industry, and puts other music sellers such as Amazon.com or Rhapsody at a disadvantage, because IPods are so popular. The music that Napster sells, on the other hand, is compatible with almost all MP3 players other than Ipods. In this way, Napster is probably attempting to keep people from investing in Ipods, and invest in non-Apple MP3 players instead. It would be more fair to all MP3 player distributors and users if all music was sold in a standard MP3 format. A law should be passed that forces all music vendors to sell music only in a format that is compatible with all MP3 players.
I also think a law should be made that bans political advertisements from lying. Because the 1st Amendment grants all US citizens the right to free speech, politicians are allowed to lie in political advertisements. I think that political ads should only be legally allowed to express the truth. It is morally wrong that politicians, who are very in the public eye, are allowed to lie to the general public through political advertisements. This skews the opinions of viewers of political ads, and gives off false images of candidates. Political advertisements can be very influential, and as people are likely to believe what they see on TV or hear on the radio, they can really impact a person’s opinions. Politics play a big role in our democratic society, and the fact that US citizens have the ability to vote on which politician they wish to represent their views is marred by the fact that their opinions are skewed by lying political advertisements. This infringes upon our democratic political system because it can influence a person’s opinions about a candidate and thus can affect their vote. It is not right that a person may vote for one candidate over another because that candidate expressed negative lies about the other candidate through advertising. People may end up being influenced by lies to vote for a candidate even though it may not be the candidate that actually represents their views and opinions. The fact that political advertisements are allowed to lie is not only morally wrong, but it is also harmful to our democracy.