Music should be free for all

After the case against NAPSTER, millions of people worldwide,continue to steal and exchange free music on the Internet while the music industry objects, but is the music industry really suffering??

The motion : Music should be free

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

It helps RockStars live longer.

"An Eircom official told colleagues they should think of music piracy as ‘sharing’ and 'helping the health and good living of rich cocaine sniffing rock stars by leaving them with less free money to spend on sex and drugs,' the High Court heard today.
Michael McDowell SC, for four record companies who claim Eircom should be compelled by the court to take measures to prevent the use of its networks for the illegal free downloading of music, said such music piracy is costing record companies here up to €14 million a year."- [[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0115/breaking81.htm]]
A lot of important Musicians feel piracy and free distribution of music brings them closer to their fans. This makes them healthier and happier. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4067031.stm]]

No because...

Granted rock music like any other form of art has its fair share of hell raisers but free music isn't exactly society's way of paternalism as it's indiscriminate towards humanitarians and hell raisers alike. If they make more money from their CD's or legal downloads then they would have less stress strain from having long tours without contact with their family and friends .
[[http://www.dawn.com.pk/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/entertainment/09-bollywood-wants-indians-to-stop-dancing-to-pirated-tunes--szh-07]]

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

60% of All musicians believe pirates should NOT be sued.

go to hell nigga

No because...

yes i will because music should be free

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

The industry actually benefits despite claims to the contrary

Revenue for the British music industry has risen by almost 5% recently despite frequently voiced concerns about piracy damaging the industry.
[[http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86724/uk-music-economist-says-music-industry-revenue-up-4-7/]]

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_United_States]] The U.S boasts a 40 billion dollar industry with only 12 billion dollars generated from the home turf.

Dave Kusek points to how, despite the availability of free music on the Internet, Internet music sales are actually increasing and they presently account for 41% of the industry sales in total.[[http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/2009/01/music-stats-for-2008-from-soundscan/]]

No because...

Revenue in Britain and the USA might have risen (partly as a result of both countries cultural dominance when it comes to pop) but what about other countries in Europe or for that matter the world?! The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry IFPI reports that in France the number of album releases by new artists fell by a thumping sixteen percent and in Spain a paltry 0.1 percent of downloads are actually legitimate ones that go to the consumer.[[http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf]] That doesn't seem like free music benefiting the industry to me. Furthermore in the long run the music industry could stand to lose thousands of jobs by 2012 and an estimated £1.1 billion as a result, That's a lot of money that's not going to the industry.

A little bit of promotion free music will boost a musician's career, but if music was all free, entirely free, then musicians would not generate any money at all, would they?

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

Most people already get it for free already.

We all know that most people get their music for free illegally. They think that 5 bucks a song is not worth it, and they ar right. The money is really stopping us to get music and listen to it ourselves. We cant fully appreciate it and the quality of free music sometimes is awful. Music is for everyone so everyone should be able to get it rich or poor. Music is a form of expressing yourself and it shouldn't be just a form of making money, it is art and should be appreciated that way. it shouldn't be so hard to obtain. It should be free. It should be open. Music is more than just a glamour of hollywood. It is art, feeling, rhythm, beat and so much more. We should let people be able to get it for free. That way more people would be able to listen to it. The artists probably earn money either way.

No because...

5 bucks for song? Where the hell do you shop? The most expensive ive seen a song is $1.29? and if you want to speak of such an art being too expensive, look how much paintings go for. You can get a whole album for a fraction of the price of a painting.

This means that you can purchase 10-15 pieces of art for half the price of a painting. Talk about pricey

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

Music Industrry

You are all fags.
music free

No because...

You have no argument. And if you feel such way, stop listening to music and go get a job where you make no money.

Music should be free for all
Yes because...

Poor needs music

This is not fair for the poor because they don't have enough money to pay for the music and they probably don't even know how to pay for the downloading music.

No because...
Music should be free for all
Yes because...

Major music industries/companies

companies are making to much money off of artist for instance: Justin bieber made 389,000 off of his hit single "boyfriend" his contractors had to give 200,000 to itunes and kept some of the profits leaving justin with 83,000. Justing makes over 50 million a concert. Im not going to buy his album but if it was free i would go and check it out. But with people who do listen to his music and dont want to buy a song they downlaod it and if they like it they might want to go to his concert where its maybe 100$ or over for a ticket! labels should stop trying to pull money out of songs and focus more on the concerts and tours.

No because...
Music should be free for all
No because...

Public opinion is against the pirates and illegal file sharing.

There is clear evidence that the general public across the globe want artists to be paid and for their intellectual rights to be respected. In France 84% of people who had downloaded music illegally thought artists and copyright holders should be protected. Also nine in ten consumers thought that copyright should be enforced by strong laws[[IFPI "Digital Music Report 2009: New Business Models for a changing environment]]. While some musicians may be in favour of free music the public realise that there is no such thing as a free MP3 so to speak

Yes because...

The same public that listens to and uses/downloads free music?
The survey is a lie. If people steal music and claim they are against it, then they are lying or at least very very hypocritical.
They probably did not know that the surveyors 'knew' they were stealing music,thus they wrote 'we don't think anyone should steal music' to get away with it...little did they know *wink*( I'm purely speculating). Anyway, ACTIONS speak louder than words or thoughts or questionnaire answers.

Music should be free for all
No because...

Free music throttles (strangles) freedom of artistic expression

Yves Riesel made this quote in 2008: “ The victim of online music piracy is the freedom of artistic expression.” and he's right[[http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf]] . As a result of the chunks that online piracy is taking out of the industry smaller independent labels and distributors some of which have had file for bankruptcy and close down like CBUJ which a lot of people will not have heard of but was responsible for the distribution of CD's for 44 "different labels "whether artists or bands[[ Kyle Swenson " Music distributor files for chapter 7" The Nashville post Accessed 10.08.09 http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/7/20/local_music_distributor_files_for_chapter_7%5D%5D . While this event doesn't show in itself that freedom of expression is being hurt it means that fourty four different labels have lost a way of distributing their tracks to the market and to people. That means that other genres have harder time breaking through and artists in a bid to gain sales to support themselves are limited in what genres or even what languages they can use and how far they can appeal.

Yes because...

Free music is not the problem. Greater demand for certain specific genres of music and/or languages is. If people rob themselves of the right to listen to musical genres or music in languages that they do NOT want to listen to, in the first place. Then, what is the harm? It is the will of the people.

Freedom of expression is not curtailed , anyone can make and post music on various social-networking/ video/audio-hosting sites for free. These artists are ONLY halted from SELLING their tracks. Tracks that do not harness enough public demand/attention or economic demand for that matter. This is merely, a natural consequence of the means to capitalist market efficiency.

Music should be free for all
No because...

It's not just music at stake

Music isn't the only industry affected by the prospect of piracy and file sharing. Industries such as animation have been thumped badly by illegal filesharing combined with fan subbing which has hit DVD sales of anime both inside and outside of Japan badly and discourages animation from other countries. This situation could also make other forms of material such as comics or even non fiction books (research into writing them costs money) prohibitively expensive with no return on investment not even to cover costs. Admittedly there is a time honoured thing called doing it for love not money but with that being said in order for musicians and artists of any sort to be professionals and to hold concerts etc they have to have income streams. And one of the main income streams is through selling their finished product. Take that away from any artists and he or she is left in a tough position that may turn them away from their chosen profession

Yes because...

Again, this is not about freedom of expression or fame or popularity. It is about fortune or making money.
And statistics(cited in earlier yes-es) show, that artists in DEMAND are making more money off the 'internet market' in recent years despite piracy and the global financial crisis.
The artists against piracy, are just greedy for even more money.
Also, if people can buy media sitting at home/anywhere why would they go-to a record store?
It is safe to conclude that the problem of lowered demand for tangible music, also results from the advent of the internet and whether music on the internet is free or not is irrelevant. People 'will continue to' prefer buying/getting things off the web over going to a record/C.D/Video store.

Music should be free for all
No because...

Beyonce is a music artist; That is her only job

As the above headline suggests, Beyonce is a music artist. This is her only job, she has nothing on the side apart form cinema ventures, when we buy her music, she gets paid. This is how she buys her food, clothes and other necessities.
Some may say, "She is too rich" she has more than enough. But, the point is as a result of her job and her produce, we decided we liked it, we bought it, we made her her millions. That's the whole point of a job, to make money.

If music was free, Beyonce would have to go back to high school, graduate and go to university. Then she would have to start applying for jobs. Maybe she would go to college, do a vocational course, start her own business, get a job in a hair salon, who knows...

The point is, music is actually a career, meaning a job that makes you money. Maybe Beyonce isn't a good example as she is already rich, but for a new artist starting out, their dream job would suddenly be unprofitable and they would make no money from it. They might be famous, but fame does not buy bread and butter.

Download legally please.

Yes because...

Beyonce is not a music artist.

Beyonce is a corporate scheme to make millions of dollars and the record label executives and herself rich. Music's purpose is lost when people make a "job" out producing music.

Underground music is where you find quality music and not the catchy tunes you hear on the radio that get boring after a week. Most of these musicians cannot make a living off of what they produce yet there are so many of them.

Music should be free for all
No because...

It Takes Money To Make Music

I think that many people are under the delusion that musical artists aren't "really working". This delusion needs to be shattered once and for all. Most musicians love music (as far as the making of and listening to goes) and hate "the business". But every musician learns early on that he or she cannot continue to make well produced music without dealing with that very same business. There has to be some kind of cash flow; to think any other way as a musician is to doom oneself to failure on manifold levels.

Non musical people, aka the general listening public, think that Popular music stars live lives of decadence and don't deserve to be paid for their hedonistic lifestyles. But, ironically, even the Rock Star lifestyle presented is more often than not a product of Public Relations, typically designed to sell cds.

Go buy cds and mp3s, people. Artists need your support, otherwise only computers will manufacture music. Being that the autotuner can make any fluffy girl or boy a star, we're already halfway there.

Yes because...

i think that if you arent rich enough to buy a song then these websites that let you download songs are a great way to have a good time. why should they be denied just because rich people wish to make more money. Those who have the money should pay for the music while those who dont should not have to.

Music should be free for all
No because...

This may actually cause the music industry to die out

In our current society, musicians often get very, very, very rich. Money is one of the prime motivators for making music. We risk losing a good portion of aspiring musicians if this motion was passed. We might also lose a good many listeners to music. If music was free, then surely, sooner or later, it's novelty would wear off and people would get tired of it? If music was free, people would perhaps treat it like they would treat natural scenery; like something not really of worth and merely there for our casual entertainment. Songwriters would perhaps also lack enthusiasm for their songs, giving the public audience exactly what music was worth (free!)

Yes because...

i also think that if music is illegal and where arresting people for it then why dont we do something about these fucking mexicans crossing the fucking border. so if we are going to waste our money on music downloaders then go suck a huge cock you queer ass fucking man loving panzies
look who ever keeps typeing this gay stuff your name should be nazi lover 5.0 in that case i just farted and it tickled my butthole yum i am going to jack off to that fart (Tats nasty)

Music should be free for all
No because...

Cripple our economy

Artists make billions of dollars on revenue every year. Much of this goes straight to charities, or powerful organizations. These organizations make up the backbone of our society, so why should we destroy this? Music is very much so a firm part of society, and taking this away could affect more than we think. Our economy is suffering already; why worsen this?

Yes because...

i think that we should be fucking civalized about this queer topic. we should make all good music free while all that gay person music cost $1000 a song. that would make them fucking panzies go for fucking good now wouldnt it. so again go suck a fat dick you gay, man loving, butt plugging faggot. but go and suck a huge nazi dick Nazi lover 5.0 whoever the hell you are.(different person)
this guys is really immature and im 13 so that is really bad for you fellow debater

Music should be free for all
No because...

were can they get money to fend for their families as to some it"s proffession

how can we say music should be provided for free yet some view it as both passion and profession and some even earn a living from it,i really beg to differ....

Yes because...
Music should be free for all
No because...

When you give money to music artists that is motivation and motivation leads in to more songs so more music

when artists get more money they instantly think that they are doing well and produce more songs then music becomes cheaper and everything is great :)

Yes because...
Music should be free for all
No because...

No

u r all faggots

Yes because...


Music should be free for all

What do you think?
(68%) (32%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

2 Comments on "Music should be free for all"

this chick

music should be free because some poor people cant buy and they already make enough money by touring i mean they make alot of money and it would be great for all people to just get money for free i mean every body needs money

wpDiscuz