The Instigator
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Several_Ingredients
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Music should be freely distributed on the internet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,212 times Debate No: 26210
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

ishallannoyyo

Con

R1 is acceptance
R2 - 3 are arguments and rebuttals
R4 are conclusions, no new arguments may be presented

Rules:
- No semantics
- No trolling
- No plagarism

A breach of any of these rules is an automatic forfeit.


Definitions:

Freely Distributed– the ability of the music to be freely accessed by anyone and freely downloaded in MP3 format


Music
– the art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour

On the internet
– the music will be uploaded onto specific websites and from which anybody will be allowed to download the music from those websites free of charge



If my opponent wishes to contest these definitions, it must be posted in R1 and I reserve the right to deny any definitional changes.


Best of luck to my opponent!


SOURCES
1. www.dictionary.com
Several_Ingredients

Pro

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ishallannoyyo

Con

Sorry for the rush, had barely any time, really busy. All soruces will be posted later in the comments and I will elaborate further later on. Sorry!

1. Robs musicians of their money

iTunes has reported that artists make 3 times the amount they in iTunes sales compared to album sales. This is because on an album sale artists make little amounts of money, yet on an iTunes sale they have larger margins and they thus receive more of the cut. If we were to allow for the free distribution of music, who would buy music when you can have it for free? This resolution would rob artists of the fruits of their labour, this is unfair and unjust.

2. Theft of intellectual property

This is essentially the theft of the musicians intellectual property. The song they created is copy-righted, someone downloading it for free is nothing short of theft. In fact ,Metallica was the first of many bands to sue NAPSTER for taking songs from artists without consent and releasing them on the internet for free. This gross violation of copy-right laws ended up in NAPSTER being sued into the ground. This resolution takes what is an artist's and gives it away for free.

3. This resolution will close many music stores

Many businesses selling records or albums have already shut their doors. Why? Because who needs to go to the store and pay 15 dollars for a single song when you can download it for free? This resolution would only drive more businesses into the ground as it will encourage people to download more music. This is the same concept with BlockBuster and Netflix. BlockBuster rents out DVD's and video games for a week, then you need to return them. Well when Netflix came out people no longer needed hard copies of their favorite movies. They could just watch it on Netflix! What happened to BlockBuster? They went out of business! This is the same concept with CD's, this resolution will rob many people of their livelihoods.

Sources will be posted in the next round or in the comments, depending on when I have the time. Sorry for the delay (super busy), they WILL be posted.

I look forward to my opponent's response!
Several_Ingredients

Pro

Several_Ingredients forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ishallannoyyo

Con

Extend arguments.

Sources will be posted in comments in roughly 3 hours, only 20 min or so left, sorry! THEY WILL BE POSTED.
Several_Ingredients

Pro

In setting forth the affirmative case as to why music should be freely distributed on the Internet, I would like to make it clear that this is not an abstract debate. This debate is not about whether music is being freely downloaded on the Internet, but whether this should be happening. This is a classic "is-ought" fallacy from philosophy, which was first stated by David Hume. The problem comes from arguing that what is happening, is what should be happening because it is natural. I will therefore refrain from committing this fallacy.

My opponent in setting up his case has used three economic arguments for his case. The underlying basis of these arguments is that if music is allowed to be freely distributed on the Internet, all musicians and the entire music industry will disintegrate because they can no longer generate revenue from selling their music. However, this idea falls apart under further examination. It assumes that music creators, their agents and the middlemen have a 'right' to make money from selling a non-scarce good. Music is already freely distributed on the Internet, what these people are doing is trying to sell something that is exactly the same as what we can get for free. Economics is not a moral issue[1]. All artists have a right to try to make money, but not to make money. Under the current system, where digital music is sold online, artists do not get the cut that Pro argues they deserve. In reality, one third of iTunes royalties go to Apple. Most of the rest goes to the record company, the artists only makes ~10% of what is being sold. [2], [3]. This can only get worse as more and more music sales are lost to piracy. A new model is needed. What artists need to do is sell what is scarce, which is their live performances and merchandise.
the
So there you have it, Con has put all their eggs in one basket and relied on three arguments that all share the common assumption that artists have a right to make money, instead of a right to try to make money. It is up to Con now to argue the case as to why artists ought to make money off something that has zero scarcity.

References
1. bit.ly/eXsU9k
2. bit.ly/WHBkL73.
3. bit.ly/tg0wHf
Debate Round No. 3
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. I will now take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Before I begin though, I would like to point out that I cannot open any of his links as they are not linked properly, thus this counts as a lack of sources.

The underlying basis of these arguments is that if music is allowed to be freely distributed on the Internet, all musicians and the entire music industry will disintegrate because they can no longer generate revenue from selling their music.

My opponent has completely brushed aside my second argument, pointing out that this resolution is morally wrong. My opponent has also exaggerated my points. I have pointed out that musicians will lose revenue and this resolution it will kill small music stores around the country; I never said the music industry will collapse, but it will be severely weakened.

It assumes that music creators, their agents, and the middlemen have a “right” to make money from selling a non-scarce good. Music is already freely distributed on the Internet, what these people are doing is trying to sell something that is exactly the same as what we can get for free.

No, what we are doing is robbing these people of the IP and millions of dollars. File sharing has cost the British music industry over 500 million pounds [1]. I have never said that they have a “right” to make music. For example, you buy a music record. Your neighbour was going to buy a music record, but instead chose to download it illegally off the internet. This is essentially theft, they would’ve made money, but instead their hard work is taken and given away for free. Is this right? No!

Under the current system, where digital music is sold online, artists do not get the cut that Pro argues they deserve.

You are Pro. Secondly, artists actually make the most money from iTunes and not CD sales. My opponent’s two sources I have been unable to open, but my source hopefully voters can open. Anyways, digital music revenue in 2011 was $14 billion, while physical CD sales were only $5.7 billion [2]. This shows that if we were to freely distribute music online, the digital music revenue stream would be strangled to death, costing artists over $14 billion! That’s a lot of money!

A new model is needed. What artists need to do is sell what is scarce, which is their live performances and merchandise.

This model is severely flawed. If artist’s were only to do live performances and merchandise, the music industry would die. First off, nobody is producing new music except at their live shows. Carly Rae Jebson wouldn’t exist, why? Because nobody would have heard her song. Instead, she would’ve had to get a deal to do a live performance. How many people are willing to go to a live performance of some unknown nobody? Plus, from the lost revenue of digital music sales live performance and merchandise tickets will have to be even higher than ever! This model is extremely flawed and will never work.

So there you have it, Con has put all their eggs in one basket and relied on three arguments that all share the common assumption that artists have a right to make money

As pointed out above, I have not made this assumption. I have pointed out that this is intellectual property theft, will close businesses, and robs artist’s of their money.

I have provided arguments, fulfilling my BOP and successfully defended my pillars. My opponent on the other hand has not provided any arguments and has thus not fulfilled his BOP. As he said in the beginning of his speech, this debate isn’t about if it is happening or not, but whether it should be happening. Thus, we have a shared BOP which my opponent has neglected. My sources from R1 are used again in R2 and have been posted. My opponent has failed to provided actual sources that I can open. My opponent has forfeited a round, provided no sources, and has failed to provide any contentions. I REMIND MY OPPONENT THAT NO NEW ARGUMENT’S MAY BE POSTED IN THE FINAL ROUND AS I WOULD HAVE NO CHANCE TO REFUTE THEM. ANY NEW CONTENTIONS POSTED IN THE FINAL ROUND CONSTITUTES A 7 POINT FORFEIT. As my opponent has failed and cannot meet his BOP, has forfeited a round, and has provided no sources it is an easy VOTE CON. I thank the voters for reading the debate and my opponent for a thought-stimulated and fun debate!

SOURCES:

  1. http://www.ft.com...
  2. http://www.grabstats.com...

Several_Ingredients

Pro

I understand the futility of trying to sway voters in the 4th round, but it is my role so I shall give the final word on this.

I wish to restate the my arguments of the 3rd round and clarify any misconceptions anyone may have. As the 3rd round was itself a rebuttal, and did not directly give BoP, I shall not provide that here. I stand by my thematic grouping of Con's points, as having the same underlying message. Con's points are all so similar that a strong rebuttal to any one of them is a rebuttal to all of them.

Con makes the point that whenever music is downloaded for free via the internet, it is a lost sale. But where do the sales take place? Con says that most of the money now comes online and not through CDs. My point here is that this is an untenable position for music companies. Music is already freely distributed on the internet, they are selling the exact some thing as can be freely obtained. Con conflates morality and economics, and says that music companies have the right to Intellectual Property, and therefore to profit from it. Con simplifies it as a lost sale for every pirated good. This is not true in every instance of course, though piracy is growing very rapidly throughout the world, entertainment remains a very profitable business. My point is that at this rate, it will reach a point where it is no longer profitable to sell music online. Hence the resolution that music should be freely downloaded from the internet.

Con says that artists selling only scarce goods and services "will never work". Con makes a fallacy by thinking that consumer behaviour won't change once music companies stop selling non-scarce goods. All that money (far greater than con's $14 billion figure) will have to go somewhere. In the end, what's to stop consumers from spending all the saved money from pirated music on the music industry? Better yet, they get real goods, not digital ones that are already free!

In closing, I would like to thank Con for putting a lot of effort into their debate. I would have liked to have presented more material, and I regret that I did not. If I can say one thing to the voters, it would be to not weigh conduct so heavily into the debate. Instead, pay more attention to the substance of the arguments. Con's arguments all shared a common, economic foundation and the same assumptions that music companies deserve the money they are making from digital sales- from a non scarce good.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
The sources were supposed to hyperlink. It seems that DDO shortens URLS automatically, so link-shortening is redundant.
There were:
1. http://www.techdirt.com...
2. http://www.macworld.com...
3. http://www.investinganswers.com...
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
The sources were supposed to hyperlink. It seems that DDO shortens URLS automatically, so link-shortening is redundant.
There were:
1. http://www.techdirt.com...
2. http://www.macworld.com...
3. http://www.investinganswers.com...
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Sorry, I can't as it wasn't posted. You will lose the conduct point, but it gives you more time to expand your points.
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
I really did not handle this well, I'm sorry. I should have requested a time extension. Will you accept a condensed form of my arguments? They are as follows:

1. Economics is not a moral issue
That is, the creators of the works do not have a 'right' to make money, but a right to try to make money. As it stands, they are selling a non-scarce good, because music is already freely distributed on the Internet. In economics, rights do not matter, supply, demand and relative scarcity are the driving forces.

2. Copyright laws are too restrictive.
They are heavily in favor of the music companies and not artist rights, they get between 8 to 12 cents for every dollar spent on iTunes, 34 cents goes to Apple, and the rest to the music companies. Internet distribution cuts out the middleman, a middleman that does not need to be there anymore.

3. This form of distribution will mean better music for all of us.
Because the power is not in the hands of the artists and not the companies, they have more freedom. They can still sell their music, through live acts, merchandise and the like. It also gives consumers a better market to decide on what music they like. They can listen to as much music as they want, because its non-scarce, and choose to reward truly creative artists by buying their scarce goods/services.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
people don't seek to be offended, I can't help feeling pain if you stabbed me, its a natural reaction that cannot be helped, and so if you are expressing an opinion in a way that deliberately seeks to be offensive, you will obviously get the big thumbs down from everyone.
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
Really? I have no right to 'offend' people? Or even to seek to 'offend' people? You could say that by doing that I would be going against some rules on "civility" on this site, in general however, we have the right to express ourselves as we see fit.

Again- too often offence is taken by people who seek to be offended. Who wish to silence viewpoints they disagree with. I would also like to make it blatantly obvious that I this picture attacks an idea (religion) and not a person. Any perceived insult only reveals that persons insecurities in what they believe. If faith truly were enough, and that their religion granted them the moral high ground, they wouldn't seek to silence dissenters, now would they?
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
you picture expresses a claim which you are passing off as a belief, which its that too. you don't have the right to be offensive in your conduct though, its not that people find it offensive, its that your picture seeks to offend.
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
There is always a time and a place for snarky commentary, but for this post, I'll leave it. If my profile picture offends you, that's your right. I, to put it bluntly, really don't care. Too often people say "I'm offended" as if that gave them license to stop others from expressing their opinions. I'm a hardliner when it comes to freedom of expression, including the freedom to express hatred or vitriol.

This picture expresses my idea that religion is toxic, and we'd all be better off without it. You can disagree, and you can "tut-tut" however you like, but this is my view. I won't demand respect, but I will demand tolerance.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I'm atheist too... just I think the picture is inappropriate and unfair to blame things like that on religions.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Pro is an evangelical atheist, give him credit for how closed minded he can be, very soon, i betcha he will be able to rival composer.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
ishallannoyyoSeveral_IngredientsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
ishallannoyyoSeveral_IngredientsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Bad arguments by Pro. Otherwise an interesting debate.