that music piracy should be legalized

Well i recently wrote an article for the school newspaper on this topic, so i might as well take this! Thanks for putting it up, Mitchellr. And thanks for "eductating" us (haha just teasing). I'm assuming you meant music piracy to be downloads instead of pirated DVDs and CDs as is common outside the US, since I'm pretty sure most people would agree that is wrong. I would affirm the resolution that Music piracy should be legalized. Definition of music piracy: illegal downloads of music through the internet and programs like the former Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, Grokster, etc. This would not include wide-scale PIRACY involving recreating counterfeit CDs and selling them for less. My reasons for affirming said resolution include: 1. "Work for Hire" contracts are B.S. 2. Record excecutives going on and on about these downloads hurting the industry are the ones really ripping off artists 3. "Piracy"/Downloads actually help the artists. 1. Firstly, "work for hire" contracts and similar legal contracts are ridiculous. A copyright is essentially a temporary monopoly granted to the creator of a work by the government. It is basically legal fiction saying that a person may own an idea, technique or other things involving "intellectual property". This is all fine and good, because I believe most of us would agree that a creator deserves credit for his work. Before 1978, however, copyrights weren't exactly user-friendly. They would only last 52 years, if you remembered and bothered to renew it several times (which wasn't easy). Creators could outlive their copyrights, leaving them without the income from it in their later years. This was like swiping away Gramma Smith's Social Security benefits at age 72 or so. Then in 1978, the laws were changed so that a copyright would last for a certain amount of years after the author's death. This allowed for not only the creator's income but also for his dependents for some time as well. This was great for authors, artists, and creators, until their publishers/record companies/etc. found a way around it. This was "work for hire" contracts. Work for hire contracts basically made it so if you created something while on the job, it was the legal property of the company. That's not TOO bad, right? But then factor in that artists and musicians don't really work regular hours. Their work is published, they work whenever they want to. That means all their music or work they do during the years involved in their contracts was the publisher's property. The truth is, companies do NOT make music, they do not create art, they do not invent anything. People do. Publishers publish, that is their job. They do not create the work, they send it out to the market. But under these contracts, those songs, pieces of art, books, or other works are the publishing company's property. They pay the artist just enough to keep him on the contract and take the rest. I believe this is wrong. Why should a corporation get the copyright for an artist's work? The artist should get the copyright and be able to license any company he wishes to publish it. Don't believe me? Look on your latest CD? Chances are it doesn't say "Copyright: Pink Floyd". It's going to say "Copyright: ABC Recording Company". 2. Record executives are the ones doing damage. So record companies and their executives get the rights to artists' music. They also take the majority of the money! How much does a new album cost? About $15, right? Now how much does a blank CD cost? less than one dollar. And how much does it cost the publishers to manufacture one CD? not very much at all. Now here's the important part: how much of that $15 pie does the artist get? About 20% generally! So around 80% of the money goes to the publishing company. Take away the couple dollars it costs to manufacture that CD, and you get a huge profit. Shouldn't money be going to the artist, not the company? The company performs a service for sure, but the act of publishing doesn't deserve more credit than the actual act of creating the work! The publishers don't deserve all the money they get (also, this isn't the only way they rip off artists). 3. These downloads help artists. These illegal downloads in fact help artists. Let's take a step back and think about it: listeners download music so that they can have more music than they could otherwise afford. Record executives whine about "lost sales" due to illegal downloads. The reality is they haven't lost sales due to the downloads. The listeners wouldn't be buying the music if it wasn't otherwise available, they would just be going without. Why don't listeners buy that music? Because, unless they are already familiar with and enjoy that artist's sound, they don't want to spend fifteen bucks on an experiment. They don't want to spend 15 bucks every time they get an album and figure out they don't like So & So's music so much after all. They want to be sure that what they get is quality music that they will enjoy. They want reassurance that they won't buy an album only to figure out that that artist had one good song on the radio, and the rest is crap. If you think about it, then, these downloads are gaining listeners for an artist. And once consumers are reassured that their money will be well-spent, and that they'll enjoy the product, they are no longer afraid to part with that money. Take a look at musician Janis Ian's article, she raves about what downloads do for her music: http://www.janisian.com... Long story short: except for a few superstars already in the media stratosphere, downloads help all other artists, especially up-and -coming ones. Downloads essentially equate to word-of-mouth. When you find an artist, you get some songs that you can on Limewire, and give it a test run. If it's good, you'll want more. Chances are you'll be buying the next album, not to mention tickets to the next concert they have in town (I've even bought albums i already had, simply for the actual hard copy, cover art, etc.). Many artists offer free downloads anyway. Some have even handed out their album, allowing the consumer to pay as much as they feel they should. Some pay nothing, others pay half price, others full price, and a few even above regular price! And they just converted apathetic people into listeners and fans! So what can artists and record companies do? For one, they can lower the price on those CDs. I already showed how much a CD costs to make versus how much it costs to buy. Consumers wouldn't be so afraid to experiment with $5-10 instead of $14-25. If prices went down, consumers would spend. I await your response, and wish you good luck!