The Instigator
Grovenshar
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
mangolife23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Ten Hour Music Loops are Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Grovenshar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 89106
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Grovenshar

Pro

Rounds:
1) Acceptance
2) Opening Arguments
3) Rebuttals
4) Closing
5) Thank Yous

Definitions:
Ten Hour Music Loops - The looping of a song, not owned by an individual, for ten hours that is uploaded to YouTube
mangolife23

Con

I accept this debate. I am arguing that ten hour music loops are moral.
Debate Round No. 1
Grovenshar

Pro

When one person steal something from another person, that is called thievery. In the case of music, one person taking another published work and calling it their own is thievery. If I take music from an artist, loop it for ten hours, and upload it to YouTube to generate views and/or money, I am actively stealing traffic, and therefore money, from said artist. This is immoral.
mangolife23

Con

I am so sorry! I didn't realize you were talking about copyright. I completely agree with your side of the debate but I'll argue the other side to be a good sport.

Do you have any actual statistics or proof that 10 hour music loops decrease the profits of artists? (Who make enough money anyways.) Besides, artists make most of their money off of touring, not on music from iTunes. 10 hour music loops are also tedious and people are more likely to just preview the song on there and then buy it from the store, especially when they can put it into playlists then. You could also just listen to the music video anyway and keep replaying it. How is this any different?
Debate Round No. 2
Grovenshar

Pro

I'm going to address the last question first. According to a couple of studies, YouTube actually makes artist a lot more money than would be found in album sales [1]. On average, YouTube steals $1 million, but makes $1 billion dollars [1]. YouTube pays an average of $1.30 per 1,000 music streams/views [1]. In the case of Anaconda (as of 4/3/2016), the videos has 576,654,884 views [2]. If you put the views into this formula: Views / 1,000 Views * $1.30 = Profit, you get $749,651.35 in profit. The two ten hour loops I could find have 42,027 views [3 & 4]. So, given that each view constitutes a minimum of an hour watching, we can assume that these people, if they had actually watched and repeated the video, could have added a total of 504,324 views, or $655.62. This may not seem like much, but it is still money. This means that people are still stealing money for their own purposes. All they did is make an audio clip, that someone else put hours, even days, into, loop for ten hours. Do this enough times, and you might have a small fortune.

Sources:
1) http://www.fool.com...
2) https://www.youtube.com...
3) https://www.youtube.com...
4) https://www.youtube.com...
mangolife23

Con

I don't think you really addressed the big question here. If artists are putting their music up on youtube anyway, then isn't it fair for anyone to use it?
Debate Round No. 3
Grovenshar

Pro

Simple Answer:
No-ish

Long Answer:
YouTube, as a platform, is designed for people to share what they have created with other people. It is meant to be viewed by other people, nothing else (unless explicitly stated by the creator). Therefore, people may view it, but they may not take that content, brand it their own (even if the original artist name is present, ten hour loops are on their channels), and subsequently steal viewers and money. It is ok to view the video as many times as you like, but in the context of ten hour loops, it is not free for use without explicit permission.

Final Thought:
These videos are essentially thievery. However, they don't just take money, they also take viewers and ideas. This is immoral.
mangolife23

Con

If they gave the artists full credit then how is it stealing when the music is already up for free?
Debate Round No. 4
Grovenshar

Pro

As much as I would like for this debate to go on, I set aside this last round for thank yous. Thank you so much for accepting this debate and sticking with it even though you're arguing for you're personally unfavored side. It's been a real pleasure. I wish you luck in this, and future, debate(s).
mangolife23

Con

I would say the same thing. As much as I love winning debates, you have argued a very compelling side. Thanks for a nice debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Mango, just so you know i am not actually sexist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by random_noob 1 year ago
random_noob
Grovensharmangolife23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con did not provide any arguments to support the negation of the resolution. Pro made a valid point with copyright, which Con conceded.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Grovensharmangolife23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: $655.62 of hypothetical money stolen, with the rebuttal being a Red Herring of ignoring the data and asking a question. R4 con asked "If they gave the artists full credit then how is it stealing when the music is already up for free?" which was already answered by pro in the previous round.