This house will stop the fight with piracy
Debate Rounds (3)
1. it is not effective
2. piracy helps developing countries develop
3. piracy reduces the gap between developing and developed countries.
Firs of all, it is not effective, since people themselves are willing to continue to pirate and their willingness can't be stopped, since the punishment can't guarantee that they will not pirate again. What we see in India- control forces burn all pirated CD's, but this doesn't really make piracy smaller, as CD's are being produced again and again. Also, it takes a lot of resources and time to crack down piracy in Internet. Internet is a new sphere, and the technology is not that advance yet to cope with piracy online. Many anonymous links can appear from any part of the world at any given second. For example, everyone knows the web-site Zaycev.net, where we can download music for free. Their moderators live in Russia, but that only means that people from any country can access their materials and only forces from Russia itself can stop them.
Piracy helps developing countries to develop. In developing countries, where is the limit for needed information exists due to the lack of research, piracy plays a role of enabling people to receive information they need to develop. On average, more teenagers in any Central Asian country know how to use Adobe Photoshop rather than American teenagers, because the last ones have to buy it for 700USD per program. This fact shows that development is faster when the information is available.
This leads to the third contention- through piracy we will be able to decrease the gap between developing and developed countries. Let those teenagers use that information and software. let them get to know the culture of developed countries through watching those movies and listening to that foreign music and they will be able to develop faster. Rather than making them buy the product, which they will not be able to buy anyways due to the low income.
To sum up, I wanted to say that if the product will be available only through purchase, people in developing countries will not buy it anyways, which means that companies will not loose the revenue they still could not have been obtained anyways. Also, Piracy helps the development of the country and with willingness of people to pirate, piracy will never be stopped, because it is a part of economy- we see the biggest precentile of pirated materials in the countries, where these products would never been bought otherwise, - in poor developing countries. Stop wasting the resources on something that can't be stopped, stop fighting with piracy. Thank you
First of all, piracy, as you indicated, is stealing of someone else's work. as a government, it should not tolerate people stilling work from each other as it is violates Intellectual property rights. imagine yourself working for years, wasting your resources and money and getting your work easily stolen afterwards just for the reason that it would help you. At the same time, this stealing will not help the one who actually did the work and tried his best to get the revenues and recognition. My first argument will be that piracy kills the artists, musicians and book writers who had just started their career. Since they have spent funds and their budgets to start their work, piracy will prevent them from getting further funds since all their work will be given out for free. Therefore, there would be no more people willing to write and do any kind of work, if they understand that the government approve the act of stealing and will not protect their rights.
My second argument is that piracy brings harm to millions of people who work in those industries producing legal products. in 2007 Bollywood had a job loss amounted in 6 million workers, because it could not get enough profit from the movies to pay their workers a salary. People who had been working to make the product were left with nothing and that is why piracy should be fought for, so people who actually deserve something, would get it.
The last argument is that Piracy is morally wrong. As I mentioned before, governments should not allow and close eyes on people who steal and should track them down. That is why USA fight with piracy and had been successful in it, now that only 10 percent of products are being pirated in that country. Chinese government also declared in 2011 he war on piracy and since then they could track over 300.000 web sites that used illegal materials. We don't say that we are going to make it too expensive for people in developing countries. but at least we are stating that they should have moral norms to not steal the work.
to conclude, I would state that if the progress of fighting goes slow, it doesn't mean we should stop fighting. As we see the results, even small ones. we can be sure that in future the war on piracy will stop when there will not be any piracy at all.
When you say that it is immoral to steal someone's work, you did not imply that it is also immoral to deprive people from information that they are hoping for. Of course, we agree that stealing is bad, but at the same time, we do not see an other option for the people who need to receive the information. Will foreign countries really care about the revenues they will get from poor people in developing countries, knowing that the revenue will be small an at the same time they will know that they are taking money from people who already have financial problems? Is it right to put a burden of having to pay for the material that they can't otherwise obtain. Here we are saying that if people are being made to pay now, they will never develop into a country, where citizens will be able to afford the products without piracy.
Regarding your argument on loosing jobs- as I stated before, it is not the right time to fight on piracy, Once you let the gap decrease and let other countries to improve their economic well-being, you will have low piracy, as in US or China. Good to mention that those examples with success in fighting comes exactly from the developed countries, and you haven't provided any examples on successful fight in developing, because there was no success.
To rebut your first argument, we can say that actually piracy serves as a promotion for the starting actresses and writers. You would not need commercials and other advertising. since once you put your work in internet, you will probably get to be known through exactly piracy. Without piracy, those starting artists would still not get any profit, since, as I mentioned, people are less willing to BUY something that they don't know about, Every person wants to hear the music first, taste it, and only after decide, whether to buy or not. In this situation. people would be less likely to buy the product, meaning that the loss of revenues is not caused by piracy.
Firs of all, depriving people from the information they don't have rights on is not immoral. There is information that is available for general public for free so to enable them to improve. There are school, libraries, universities and all other institutions that work exactly for the reason to improve the society toward development. The products that are being pirated are not the ones that are the most important for development. You are exaggerating the fact that without these products the country would not be able to develop. It would, slowly, but it would under other factors.
Loosing jobs. How long shall we wait till the government will crack down on piracy? till all workers at the industries would be out of work? I believe that while Bollywood loosing its workers, developing countries had no essential improvement toward their well-being. Therefore, we are just wasting our time while trying to help developing countries through the use of pirated products.
We agree that the gap decreases when people watch other lifestyles and get those software programs, but the costs of it for the industries, workers, composers and writers are too high that we can not allow the government to wait. And regarding the starting writers and musicians- while they are just starting, the promotion of free stuff is not as important for them as the ability to pay for their bills. You can promote Rihanna and Eminem, and get the audience for their concerts, but those people need money to organize those concerts.
Seems like you approve the fact that developing countries do develop through the piracy and piracy does makes the process faster. But at the same time you would prefer making money for an individual rather than look in a long term impact. Who is going to buy the product if it is not available for free? nowadays teenagers have not less than 1000 soundtracks in their players, and even if you charge 50 cents for each song, you still make teenagers to pay 500dollars for the music. Add to that prices on movies, software, books and you will see that it is something that students like us would not be able to afford. Therefore the answer is that I will not simply buy your product and you still will not have any money from me. But there will another consequence- i will not be able to develop. I will not be able to learn about Photoshop, will not know this or that particular writing and will not be able to use it to earn money and contribute to the economy. Now multiply this fact to millions of people that think the same way as I do and you will understand, that right now our nations are not ready to pay. And while they can't, it is better to let them pirate so they will have the ability to pay in future, in a long term run. We are not closing eyes on stealing, but postponing the process till the gap will decrease. Job losses and decrease in revenues is a price, but that price is not dependent from piracy- it depends on the ability of people to pay. Right now they do not have that ability and the piracy is a result of it. and as I said, while people are unable to afford goods, they will pirate and as more you willing to stop piracy, as more time you waste on a consequences, rather than spending it on eliminating the root problem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonathan11 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I was confused because the con was arguing that we should not pirate media.What won the debate for me was pros final statements "people like you, who would rather wait and let things change themselves" and "earn money and contribute to the economy"
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.