CreateDebate


Debate Info

57
16
Wrong Right
Debate Score:73
Arguments:25
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Wrong (18)
 
 Right (7)

Debate Creator

garrylacey(22) pic



File sharing, it has to stop, right?

Can the media industries survive this?

Wrong

Side Score: 57
VS.

Right

Side Score: 16
10 points

Sharing, not just files, but digital media, is the wave of the future. There are huge profits to be made in monetizing legitimate digital sharing. The companies that figure it out (like Apple) will become the most successful companies in the next 5 years.

Side: Wrong
5 points

Definitely, file sharing is around to stay. No matter how many laws try to get put in front of it or how many people speak out against it, the technology is advancing so fast that companies either need to learn to monetize the file sharing or come to grips with the fact that they're missing out on a huge payoff.

Side: Wrong
4 points

I agree. And what difference does it make, if file sharing takes the hassle out of mailing discs and usb cards and the like just to get someone to look at it when you can just email it ?

Side: Wrong
radiolynxro(8) Disputed
3 points

Home computers sales and Internet providing businesses are so successful mostly due to the file-sharing.

All the computer parts prices should include a small "copyrighted media" tax.

Also the Internet providers should include in their monthly plans such a tax.

Also the devices that can be used to play and/or produce a potentially illegal copy of a copyrighted material should include this tax. The media (blank CD, DD, blue ray) could be included in the list.

In addition to that, the copyrighted media should receive a percentage from the advertising revenues associated to their contents.

This might be a way to keep file-sharing alive and to make-it legal.

Such a tax could also make things right in what concerns taking the money only from AOL, Yahoo and other media providers while the illegal file-sharing is not generating any revenues for the production and distribution companies.

Side: Right
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
5 points

Where would this tax go? How would it benefit the owners of currently copyrighted material? I'm not sure I quite understand the reasoning behind your argument, but it intrigues me. I don't see how the content creators are getting their "cut" from this plan however.

Side: Wrong
2 points

You know, your proposed "copyright media tax" does make sense when you think about it from a public utility perspective. If creative media (aka mp3's, e-books, etc) is considered a public utility then a tax might be the right solution.

Side: Right
4 points

File sharing is here to stay, whether we like it or not. The public want it and there are just too many of us to disagree with. Media companies have to re-think how they make money in this brave new digital world.

Side: Wrong
2 points

RADIOHEAD AND NIN

Side: Wrong
2 points

The only way any of the slow adopting institutions are going to turn a profit in the coming years is to embrace file sharing as the preferred way of media consumption.

Side: wrong
1 point

I think if it's so hard to prevent music theft, maybe it should be free. It might be viable if musicians and artists went back to the Renaissance system, where they worked to impress patrons who would pay them to keep producing. I dunno. Probably not a great idea, I know.

I'm just mad about how the Music Publishers of America shut down Power Tab Archive :'( What will I do?

Side: Wrong
1 point

I also think music should be free. Now that distribution is not such a cost (if a cost at all) why should we give any money to distributors? Artists make all their real money from playing live. If we had a more meritocratic system, the cynically constructed and marketed generic pop bands would disappear to be replaced with real musicians capable of innovation and lasting appeal. Take Radiohead for instance, they gave away their latest album making payment an option. If people like it, they'll pay - and they did. Movies should work similarly - you should pay on the way out of the cinema. If you leave in the first half an hour, you don't pay. If you stay for the duration, you pay total cost. Why should you feel robbed if a hyped movie turns out to be complete rubbish?

Side: Wrong
radiolynxro(8) Disputed
1 point

It is a good idea. Let's ask the musicians not to ask for money for their songs. Internet should be also free. Why to pay? And why would not we all give for free the things that we are doing now for our money? This way we could eradicate poverty. If we abolish the money can you imagine that Bill Gates will be our equal. And not only him.

When all the people will say "I don't need your money Mr. Gates" then all the millionaires from this earth will become common people.

Only one question is bothering me. Why to start by asking other people not to ask money for what we want them to do for our benefit and pleasure?

Why don't we do first this step and offer all the people in the world the things we are good at, but this time... for free?

Side: Wrong
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

...What?

I didn't say they shouldn't get money for it. I said they should be paid by patrons.

Side: Wrong
1 point

It will never go away. Keep seeding your torrents!!

Side: Wrong
1 point

Trying to stop filesharing is like trying to stop the free market. You can play whack-a-mole as long as you like but with basically free reproduction this is how things are going to work from now on.

Side: Wrong
1 point

The media industries have to adjust to chance, of face extinction. They are only delaying their inevitable death.

People are buying into the new 'open' movement, this is the new age of techno-hippies, vegetarianism, organic produce, open source, piracy; you just can't fight this kind of thing. The world will change.

Side: Wrong
1 point

There's no reason why it should stop. The traditional means of distributing music, movies, news, stories, etc. have been made obsolete by new technology. While producing and distributing was an expansive task, the best way we found to do it was through big institutions which could afford it. Internet has made it much simpler to share, and now everyone with a relatively cheap computer can easily do it. That's called progress. Technology making tasks cheaper and easier for everyone.

The only reason why traditional companies are pressuring governments to punish people is because they don't want to lose the status they used to have, once upon a time when what they did was actually special.

Institutions vs. Collaboration
Side: wrong
2 points

If this continues and grows at such an extreme case, we all will feel the pain of companies choking up their outpour of products and services as their revenues diminish in kind.

I'm sorry, I know it's really nice and all, hey free stuff, but, the long-run implication are nothing but poor.

Side: Right
0 points

If the growth of file sharing continues at the rate it is, we'll end up with media companies that simply do not have enough money to continue making all this stuff we download freely. Downloading commercial music, games, movies and TV without paying is just morally wrong and against the law.

Side: Right
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
8 points

While it is perhaps wrong, and definitely against the law it won't stop. Companies will simply rethink the way that they distribute their product. At some point someone will figure out a way to make a profit even with the enormous file sharing that goes on. At which point file sharing will be made legal to fit the new business model.

Side: Wrong