Distinction

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Due 3pm Friday May 4, 2018
BACKGROUND AND QUESTION:
The arrival of Napster in 1999, followed by other (illegal) peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technologies (e.g. Limewire, Kazaa, etc.), allowed internet users to illegally share unauthorised music and impacted the recorded music industry in a significant way. Sales of recorded music (CD albums and singles) fell dramatically and record labels began pursuing legal action against website services facilitating illegal P2P file sharing, as well as individuals caught infringing music copyright. Since this time, legal streaming services (such as Spotify and Apple Music) have entered the market and industry sales have started to recover but illegal downloading/streaming remains an important concern for the industry – particularly with the potential of block-chain technology to again disrupt the industry.
Using the basic demand and supply model as the foundation of your analysis, and importantly the concepts of consumer surplus and producer surplus, explain how the arrival of illegal P2P file-sharing technologies impacted the market for recorded music. In addition to relevant economic theories and concepts, you should also discuss some of the ethical issues that relate to illegal downloading.
You should structure your assignment around the following:
(i) Issues: Identify and explain the main economic and ethical issues related to the introduction of (illegal) P2P file-sharing technologies on the recorded music industry.
(ii) Analysis: Analyse the issues identified in (i). You must use relevant economic theory and ethical arguments.
(iii) Position: Derive your position on the issues identified in (i). You must provide evidence by interpreting, evaluating, integrating and synthesising your analysis done in (ii).
(iv) Critique: Defend your position derived in (iii) against the best possible argument(s) that may be raised in opposition to your position. You must consider the assumptions and implications of your position.
(Hint: When considering consumer surplus, keep in mind consumers can derive surplus from both legal and illegal alternatives).
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
General
The assignment is strictly 1000 words maximum (excluding reference list). It is not necessary to have equal word count for each part above but keep in mind each section is equally weighted (see below).
The assignment must be prepared using a word processing program (e.g. Microsoft Word). As detailed below, however, your final submission must be in PDF format.
It is strongly recommended that you include some figures to assist your exposition. Any included figures should be prepared electronically (e.g. Microsoft Word drawing tool).
The report will count towards 20% of your final mark.
Formatting/Referencing
The assignment must be 1.5-spaced. Use a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman, Calibri, Arial) with a font size of 11 or 12.
All sources used in the assignment should be appropriately referenced using a standard referencing system (e.g. Harvard style). The reference list will not count towards your final word count. Please consult Macquarie University Library’s resources for further information about referencing.
There is no ideal number of references but around five to eight good references would provide a benchmark for an assignment of this length.
Submission
The assignment is due 3pm Friday May 4, 2018. Students who have not submitted before the deadline will be penalised 20% of full marks per day (accepted up to 96 hours late). No extensions will be granted except in cases where an application for Special Consideration has been approved.
You must submit through iLearn using the Turnitin link provided. Submission links will be open one week prior to the deadline. All submissions must be in PDF format. Turnitin often encounters problems with Microsoft Word files that include figures and/or tables. Failure to submit as a PDF file may result in a marker being unable to mark your submission.
The Faculty of Business and Economics uses plagiarism detecting software (Turnitin) on all submissions. By submitting through Turnitin each student acknowledges the University’s policies relating to plagiarism and academic misconduct. Please see Unit Guide for more information.
You are welcome (and encouraged) to work with other students to assist in developing your knowledge and ideas but ultimately the final submission must represent your own work.
Marking
The assignment is primarily intended to assess the Program Learning Outcome related to ‘Ethical Thinking’ but also relates to ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Communication’. Presentation, grammar, spelling, and correct referencing practice will also be considered in marking.
A detailed marking rubric is provided as an appendix table in this document.
CHECKLISTS:
Document Preparation Checklist
? My assignment is typed using a word processor (e.g. MS Word).
? My assignment is written in full sentences and in clear language.
? My assignment is proofread and grammatical errors and typos are minimised.
? My assignment is written under the word limit, 1000 words.
? My assignment is written with a standard font with a size of 11 at least.
? Diagrams are drawn clearly and fully labelled. Poorly drawn diagrams reflect poor communication, which may result in loss of marks.
? Diagrams are not distorted and properly inserted into the master document. ? My assignment is saved as a PDF file of a size less than 40MB.
After-Submission Checklist
? I have double-checked whether the assignment was properly uploaded.
? I have seen my originality report.
? I have received the Turnitin receipt via email.
ECON111 MICROECONOMIC PRINCIPLES S1 2018
APPENDIX: ECON111 S1 2018 Individual Assignment Marking Rubric
Criteria Fail (F) Pass (P) Credit (Cr) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD)
Articulation of issues (20%) Issues are clearly stated and succinctly yet comprehensively explained as they relate to economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions.
Student does not provide any description of issues showing no understanding of the economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions. Student poorly describes few issues demonstrating limited understanding of the economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions. Student mostly effectively describes several issues demonstrating fair understanding of the economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions. Student effectively describes multiple issues demonstrating deep understanding of the economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions. Student effectively and creatively describes multiple issues demonstrating an extensive understanding of the economic and ethical theories, concepts and definitions.
Analysis (20%)
Issues are analysed using relevant and appropriate economic and ethics theories, concepts and definitions. Analysis includes research studies or examples. Analysis takes into account diverse/competing perspectives. Student fails to demonstrate an analysis substantiating any of made claims through theories, concepts, definitions, research studies or examples. Student provides information and no analysis, ideas/solutions. Student ordinarily demonstrates an analysis, develop poor arguments, struggling to substantiate claims through few and/or irrelevant theories, concepts, definitions, research studies or examples.
Student mostly provides information and limited analysis, ideas/solutions. Student accurately demonstrates an analysis; develops fair arguments but they lack substantiation through relevant theories, concepts, definitions, research studies and/or examples. Student accurately demonstrates an analysis; skilfully develops arguments, substantiating made claims through relevant theories, concepts, definitions, research studies and/or examples. Student accurately and insightfully demonstrates an analysis; masterfully develops arguments, substantiating made claims through relevant theories, concepts, definitions, research studies and/or examples.
Position (20%)
The analysis is interpreted, evaluated, integrated and/or synthesised to support and provide evidence for a clear overall position, demonstrating independent well-reasoned economic and ethical judgement.
Student fails to support and provide evidence for a clear and independent position. There is no interpretation and integration of the analysis for an independent reasoned judgement. Student struggles to demonstrate a clear position and independent reasoned judgement. Student ordinarily provides an interpretation and integration of the analysis.
Student accurately demonstrates a clear position and independent reasoned judgement. Student mostly effectively provides an interpretation and integration of the analysis.
Student skilfully demonstrates a clear position and independent reasoned judgement. Student effectively provides an interpretation and integration of the analysis.
Student skilfully and insightfully demonstrates a clear position and independent reasoned judgement. Student effectively and creatively provides an interpretation and integration of the analysis.
Critique (20%)
Assumptions, objections and implications of the position are identified, considered and appropriately defended.
Student fails to identify assumptions, objections and implications for an independent position regarding the topic. Student struggles to identify assumptions, objections and implications for an independent position regarding the topic. Student accurately identifies assumptions, objections and implications for an independent position regarding the topic. Student skilfully identifies assumptions, objections and implications for an independent position regarding the topic. Student skilfully and insightfully identifies assumptions, objections and implications for an independent position regarding the topic.
Organisation and evidence of research (20%)
Clarity of structure, transitions between paragraphs, accuracy, academic tone, relevance, academic sources
Text has no formal structure. Very poor text logic with frequent use of contradictions. Absence of academic tone due to consistent use of informal language. Referencing is nonconforming to standard (e.g. Harvard) style and/or absent. Articles are from non-reputable sources and/or are irrelevant to and do not substantiate made claims. Text has under-developed formal structure. Poor text logic with recurrent use of contradictions. Inappropriate academic tone due to frequent use of informal language. Referencing is mainly inaccurate and/or does not conform to a standard (e.g. Harvard) style. Articles are often from non-scientific sources, irrelevant to arguments, do not help to substantiate made claims.
Text has formal structure.
Satisfactory text logic with some use of contradictions. Inconsistent academic tone due to use of informal language.
Referencing is fairly accurate using standard (e.g. Harvard) style. Articles are mostly from reputable sources; are relevant to arguments and substantiate made claims.
Text has clear and well developed formal structure.
Excellent text logic with miniscule use of contradictions. Appropriate academic tone.
Referencing is mainly accurate using standard (e.g. Harvard) style. Articles are from reputable sources; are very relevant to arguments; thoughtfully substantiate made claims.
Text has clear and original formal structure.
Outstanding text logic with no use of contradictions. Appropriate and confident academic tone.
Referencing is impeccably accurate using standard (e.g. Harvard) style. Articles are from highly reputable sources; are highly relevant to arguments; insightfully substantiate made claims.
4 / 4