Music should be freely distributed on the internet

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