that music piracy should be legalized

Okay, are ya ready? Here we go! My opponent offers this definition of "music piracy": "Illegal duplication of sound recordings" Whereas my definition offered in the first round does not include the act of duplicating CDs or DVDs and reselling them. There are two reasons why I chose to do this: 1. (In my view) It makes for a more balanced resolution for both sides, as I mentioned before that a vast majority of people would agree that reselling the music is wrong. 2. Downloading music is very different (and subject to a less black & white moral scale) than duplicating CDs for the purpose of reselling them, because in the former you only keep it for your own use, whereas in the latter you duplicate CDs to make money off of them. In the latter you essentially steal profits, in the former you simply obtain music. We'll go straight down the list as my opponent laid out in his second round argument. He brings up that there are many "well-known established artists". In my first round argument I said that downloads through programs like Limewire, etc. help all but a few superstars. He misconstrued or misunderstood my argument here. I'm well aware of thousands of "established" artists, but there truly are few "superstars". As opposed to thousands of established artists, only a few have been catapulted into the music and media stratosphere so much so that they could be considered superstars. They are not the latest fad, and essentially everyone has not only heard of them but has also heard their music. They don't have much to gain from any form of Word-of-mouth (including downloads), unlike the rest of the music world. These superstars make up a very small percent of the total number of musicians (but probably make the bulk of the profits in the business). There ARE very few artists you could call genuine superstars. Next my opponent moves on to my point of consumers' reluctance to experiment with music when it is at such high prices. He claims that the reason the price of an album is so high is because music piracy effectively drains the profit from the business. He forgets that, as I mentioned in my opening argument, these downloads help. As I said before, listeners aren't simply downloading whole albums and collections of an artist's music that they would otherwise be purchasing. The reason they download is because they cannot afford to pay for all that music. The purpose of the downloading for them is to get more music than they can actually afford. These aren't lost sales. They would NOT be buying this music if they couldn't download it. That five billion dollars you said the music industry loses per annum is not because of illegal downloads. Record executives (and my opponent in turn) have argued that illegal downloading has made serious inroads on sales. How do they prove this? They show that sales have gone down. There couldn't possibly be any other explanation for a downturn in sales, could there? It couldn't possibly be that record companies have made serious mistakes and bad decisions regarding how to do business. It couldn't possibly be that they made bad decisions regarding what listeners want to hear. It couldn't possibly be that the very demographics they target with their music are the ones most likely to be downloading. It could be! Music companies HAVE made lousy decisions about what listeners want to hear. They HAVE been targeting the demographics that are downloading music. They have mismanaged their business, but now they have someone else to blame: illegal downloads. Now what could record companies do to remedy their situation? Pick some good music, some that's targeted to an older crowd. Let's face it, the older crowd has the money. Kids (the demographic record companies target most) are the most likely to download their music, and the least likely to have the extra money to spend on experimenting with new music. If they started producing music that would be appealing to older demographics, they might see a rise in sales. Yes, the music industry has lost millions, even billions of dollars. But the blame (at least the largest part of it) does not fall on illegal downloads. It falls on the record executives failing to target the right groups and produce half-decent music. In my opponent's next point, he points out that piracy hurts consumers as well as artists, musicians, songwriters, and producers. However, the piracy he speaks of is what i pointed out is not in my definition. The piracy he speaks of is the duplication and resale of the music, not the simple downloading. He points out that an artist's reputation may suffer when fakes are of poor quality. However, digital copies are not fakes, and they suffer such a minute decrease in quality that you can hardly tell the difference. He also points out that 85% of recordings issued don't make back their costs. I would refer him back to my previous point that says the music industry's losses are the executives' fault. And it's been no secret that about 15% of a record company's artists make the bulk of that company's profits. His last point is that stealing is stealing, period. He gives an example of someone shoplifting records from a store, then compares downloading music to this. Then he asks me a "golden rule" question: "If you were running a business ,you wouldn't want people to steal from you so why hypocritically would you do it to them ?" First off, I'm not running a business. Second, those downloads help the industry, artist, record company and all. Third, in my opinion, music should not be a business. "Music is everybody's possession. It is only the publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon Music is not a regular commodity. Music is not food to be bought and sold. Music is art to be shared and spread around. Artists should get credit, of course. They make tons of money from tours, performances, endorsements, and all sorts of deals like that. I'm fine with charging someone for a hard copy of music. I'm fine with charging money to get into a concert. But music should be shared. Music is not a business, it's an art; and the only people who think otherwise are the very people who have made music into a business for themselves. They try to turn a beautiful art form into another sleazy market where the only thing that matters is the money you make. Artists deserve credit, but i think more than credit, a musician wants his or her music to be heard. Give credit where credit is due, but share the music for God's sake. I would like to point out my opponent also only touched my third point, he failed to rebut my first two points given in my opening arguments. For those of you too lazy to scroll up the screen and check, those two points were: 1. Work-for-hire contracts are BS 2. Record executives b*tching about lost sales are the ones really hurting the industry and artists. Thanks! Chuckles