Round 2. BlackJackal V Otts: File-Sharing

The topic for this debate is "Online file-sharing has had a detrimental effect on the overall quality of new music."

BlackJackal will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Otts will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

To begin I would like to thank the community once again for making this debate forum possible. I would like to thank the judges for taking to time to listen. I would like to thank Kano and the contestants especially for a great tournament.

The file sharing phenomena took the world by storm and it all started with three little letters; MP3. MPEG Layer III format better known as MP3 was developed by a German research firm, the Franhoufer Institute, in 1991. MP3 is really nothing more than a simple compression algorithm initially meant for broadcast use. This simple algorithm grew into much more and has changed the world forever.

Napster didn’t come on the scene until 1999 but MP3’s were traded via the internet before Napster’s time. oth.net... was one of the original MP3 search engines that online file traders used. Of course, the File Sharing epidemic didn’t reach its height until Napster began its easy to use Peer to Peer network. At any given time there were hundreds of thousands of people logged into the Napster network sharing illegal music. Since then Napster has been shut down and several upstarts have come on the scene. So this is where we are today but how does it affect music quality?

The very subject of File Sharing is inflamed with many different people having very different views for varied reasons. Touching on any part of this subject is often times draws very heated and emotional responses, so we must proceed with caution.

The RIAA is blasting away at its very own customers with lawsuits. Customers are illegally downloading music just to spite the RIAA among other reasons. What are we missing here? We are missing the artists who actually produce the music we are all fighting about. Sure we find some artists aligning themselves with one side or the other but for the most part they remain silent. We shall examine this aspect in detail in due time.

Another problem is the immediate availability of all kinds of music via file sharing networks. Song has been used since the dawn of mankind as a tool to convey stories, emotions, lessons, and culture. Now those different cultures are beginning to melt together in the musical melting pot known as the internet. The music today is beginning to lose its roots and most music nowadays can be categorized simply as “Pop”. Listen to the radio and what do you hear on the Pop station? You here everything from Country to Heavy Metal and everything in between. Music is not what it used to be, music is now produced mostly to make a dollar, not to define a culture.

Quality music teaches you about life. Quality music has a mindful purpose that it wishes to portray to its listener. Quality music bleeds human emotion so strong the listener can share it with the artist. Quality music informs us of stories great and small. Yet, today we do not here quality music as much as we did in years past. We have topping the Billboard charts as of today ; Goodies, and Lean Back. In recent memory the big songs have been the Thong Song, and Hey Ya!.

As we proceed we shall delve deeper into our musical culture uncovering precisely how eroded it has become and the underlying reasons. Sit back and enjoy because this is going to be fun.

Over to you Otts and best of luck!

Thank you very much, Blackjackal. I apologize for not replying earlier, but I am presently vacationing for a week in California and I was in transit yesterday.

When we say that "Online file-sharing has had a detrimental effect on the overall quality of new music", we are assigning to a single cause a phenomenon which is a lot more complex.

I for one will admit that indeed, North American and European music has lost a lot of its quality and originality over the past two decades. But this happened way before file-sharing was invented. If we want to look at what caused the quality of music to erode, we must look at a music industry less and less inclined to take risks on new and untested music styles. Once a music style becomes the "next big thing", it's recuperated by the industry, amplified and exploited ad nauseam until there is nothing new or original about it, and the artists performing it are, quality-wise, a pale copy of what was.

Let me exemplify. Rap was developed as a subculture in the early 80's. It was new, exciting, and it had a message of defiance. Today, it has been commercialized to the extent that its freshness is lost. The same happened to boy bands - it was exciting, when bands like the New Kids of the Block came out, to have harmony singing again. But now, everyone is doing it... because it sells.

Music today is too often engineered for success and money. But file-sharing didn't do that, the music industry did. Like Hollywood and the current batch of 70's remakes, the big record companies are investing only in sure-shots and solid values - even if the musicians aren't that good or creative, the style is a sure seller.

So saying that file-sharing has had a detrimental effect on the quality of music is somewhat like shooting the messenger. The quality of music - and loss of originality - started to erode way before file-sharing was invented.

I will agree with my opponent, the bedrock upon which music is based began to erode around a decade prior to the file sharing explosion. However, I will show file sharing has increased this decay exponentially.

First thing first, Let’s discuss what exactly file sharing MP3’s has done to society in general terms. File sharing has changed the world in which we live in quite unexpected ways many of which are just beginning to be felt. File sharing has removed the RIAA’s primary focus away from producing quality music and placed it squarely on prosecuting people who illegally download music. File sharing has changed the music consumer into a “got to have it now” instant gratification consumer. File sharing has pitted the RIAA against the consumers and left the artists in the dark. These are just a few of the many effects file sharing has had on the music industry and the music culture itself. Allow me to illuminate more of what I am referring to.

The RIAA is producing more subpoenas today than they are producing quality music. To date the RIAA has fashioned thousands of subpoenas making this clearly their number one priority.[1] Unmistakably, this action has alienated a large portion of the music industry consumer. Study after study confirms consumers believe the RIAA to be an antagonist in the file sharing debate dating all the way back to their persecution of Napster.[2] While all the reasons behind the RIAA’s actions remain unclear what is clear is the music industries main goal for the last several years has been to stomp out file sharing. This means the RIAA has been preoccupied tracking down file sharers, spending money on legal expenses and investigating new technologies to stop file sharing and not with producing quality music.

How has file sharing changed the consumer? Well in a study by the University of Gothenburg it was found the file sharing revolution has had the following effects on music patrons.[2]

• Finding new music is important. By broadening the musical
  horizons the mp3 user learns about different cultures and
  subcultures.
  
• Downloading music from the Internet has become a habit for many
  who use the mp3 format. Some of our interviewees report that it is
  easy to get stuck in front of the computer in the search for new
  music. This has become a habit so hard to break, that they even
  jokingly refer to it as an addiction.
  
• For some the original CD carries symbolic value, it is something
  they want to own. For others material goods are a nuisance and
  they prefer to keep music on mp3 on the computer.
  
• With mp3 it is possible to create playlists of several hundreds of
  hours of music, which means that there is no need to bother about
  changing CDs. By using the random function, there is no risk of
  always playing the same favourite songs; instead the computer
  finds the music you might have forgotten that you have.
  

Notice the first and second point is that finding new music is important to the music consumer. This means artists are pushed to pump out new music as fast as possible. Now we all know music is not a manufactured item that can be massed produced. Music takes time to create it takes inspiration but today’s consumer wants more and they want it now. As the study pointed out it was file sharing that caused this consumer change.

The third point illustrates the changing face of actual goods sold by the music industry. With more and more consumers becoming uninterested in even purchasing CD’s it has caused the industry to lose focus on creating quality music and to put more emphasis on business models. This is extremely evident when you review the growing number on legitimate online MP3 stores.

The last topic exemplifies the changes in the music culture. No longer do people play a few favorite CD’s; today people play hundred’s, if not thousands of songs from every corner of the music spectrum. Due to the broad listening new music is migrating more and more toward the center of the continuum to grab the most market share. Thus new music is no longer being produced in the name of quality it is being produced in the name of money.

File sharing has impacted the society we all live in. The music market is changing to accommodate the new medium. The RIAA is still attempting to stomp out illegal file-sharing. But what have we lost? We have forgotten about the music itself. This error may prove to be fatal for not only the music industry but music itself. Reminds me of the Don McClean song American Pie and the simple question he posed; “Where were you the day the music died”.


[1] www.g4techtv.com...
[2] www.handels.gu.se...

A research by University of Alabama and Loyola University of Chicago scholars shows that the North American record industry lacks efficiency. This is not due to file-sharing but in good part to media mergers: "Each division of an entertainment conglomerate may be interested in promoting certain artists for various reasons, which may or may not be related to the quality or past success of those artists. This lack of central focus makes it difficult for the major labels to adequately support all of their products." (1)

Moreover, this research shows that the big record companies incur hefty production costs - 46 percent of every record sold goes to packaging, cover artwork, promotional items for radio stations and record stores, etc. Thus only 54 percent of all revenues goes to actual production costs... and royalties to the artists.

These high costs are responsible for constraining the diversity of the products offered to listeners. Less artists, under this system, are given opportunities. Hence, the Alabama/Loyola Chicago study shows, some artists like Aimee Mann now use the Internet to market their music directly to the listeners. Without the hefty packaging and distribution costs, music can now be made available on the Internet for a fraction of the cost of a CD. "Chances are that to consumers and artists alike, the Internet will bring net gains: the losses due to internet piracy will be more than compensated for by the gains from direct internet distribution. Consumers may benefit from reduced prices and increased diversity, while most artists may benefit from easier exposure and higher average incomes." (1)

File-sharing sites like Napster, Kazaa or Gnutella have had an impact on the music industry itself - an inefficient behemoth already reducing the diversity of its output because of hefty costs. However, these sites have proven a stepping stone for a new system where the artist goes directly to the listener without having to go through a record label. So file-sharing is actually putting the focus back where it belongs: not on hefty overhead costs, but on the music. Not on the industry conglomerates, but on the artist and the listener.

(1) gsbdata.wt.luc.edu...

The aforementioned study does not conclude that file sharing has no effect on the current industry model. On the contrary, it clearly states in the current music industry model file sharing has an overall detrimental effect on the industry. Below I have quoted the definitive conclusions produced in the two paragraph conclusion of the study the remainder of the conclusion is merely speculative and suggestive proved by the use or “may” and “Chances are”.



Notice the study first concludes file sharing can hurt the industry yet places the blame for constrained diversity solitarily on high costs. It is apparent this study was looking for an alternative reason for the declining music industry. Luckily, this is not the only study conducted to determine the reasons behind the fall of the music industry.

• Enders report Europe March 2003 “Piracy – Will it kill the music industry?”
  This study finds file sharing accounted for 35-40% of the global music industry decline.
  
• Forrester Research Europe January 2003 “WholeView Technographics”
  The study found 40% of file sharers bought less music and only 2% bought more than before they used file sharing software.
  
• Jupiter Research US August 2003 Survey of 1326 music fans
  The survey found 33% decreased spending since beginning file sharing while only 16% increased spending.
  
• Ipsos-Reid US Q4 2002 TEMPO
  This study found 25% of Americans own a CD burner, 59% of file sharers own a burner, of these 42% (representative of 17 million people) confessed to burning a CD rather than buying one. If this only happened once per person it would account for 1/4 of album sale losses.
  
• Edison Media Research May 2003
  This study discovers the heaviest file sharers have the most negative impact on CD sales. 16% of the respondents claim to have downloaded more than 100 files and in this group CD sales dropped 61% in one year. One year ago this group purchased 28.9 CD’s a year versus the current 11.3 CD’s.
  

Backing up the countless studies and surveys are the cold hard facts. The global music industry is losing money. For the fourth straight year sales of music declined. In 2003 the loss was 7.6% bringing the industry value down to 32 billion. Since 1999 the overall decline has been 16.3 % or 6.2 billion dollars.[1] The music industry is not in decline for no good reason and as the studies have shown the culprit is file sharing. With the amount of available capital in decline producing quality music is also in decline.

My opponent agrees that music quality is in decline and file sharing has affected the music industry. However, Otts argues that file sharing is actually helping artists by allowing artists to go directly to the consumer. Conversely, in actuality the music industry rules the legal sales of online tracks in much the same way as they do the sales of CD’s. Apple Computer, the leading online digital music retailer, retains only $0.04 of the $0.99 charge for digital tracks. Record labels, music publishers, and the industry gobble up the rest. Many experts have come out stating in the current state of business legal online music sales will die out in 5 years.[2] Without legal online music sales and consumers that want MP3’s undoubtedly illegal online file sharing will reign supreme with the music industry along with quality dying on the vine.

Okay, so the music industry is losing money due to file sharing but how does this translate into poor music quality. Simple, the music industry over the last four years has produced massive layoffs of both staff and artists. With fewer dollars to go around that means there are fewer opportunities for artists to create new music. From the publics point of view this means less new music to enjoy and even less quality music.

To clarify, my opponent agrees music quality is in decline yet disputes that file sharing is the sole reason. My opponent also agrees file sharing has impacted the music industry but disagrees this impact has affected music quality. Firstly file sharing need not be the exclusive reason for the decline in music quality yet as I have shown it is unquestionably a factor. Secondly, I have shown a direct correlation between damage done by file sharing and reduced music quality. In a nut shell, file sharing is killing music quality.

[1] seattlepi.nwsource.com...
[2] www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

What my opponent has done is provide studies showing that people buy less CDs and download more music. But what has NOT been shown is a direct link between file-sharing and the loss of quality in music.

My opponent’s argument for a direct link between file-sharing and the loss of quality in music is that due to great profit losses, the industry must massively lay off employees and artists. Well, it seems that at least some record companies are still doing quite well. For example, BMI, one of the largest companies, has reported record profits for 2004, up $43 million, or 6.8 percent, from last year, a feat they explain by efficiency, good management and diversification of activities. (1)

Which leads me to now demonstrate how in the current managerial system of big recording companies, profits do not equate with quality or diversity.

In large parts of the music industry, music itself is no longer at the basis of the drive for success. Numbers, financial results and shareholders are. Singer David Crosby deplores that “the people who run record companies now wouldn’t know a song if it flew up their nose and died. They haven’t a clue, and they don’t care.” (2) OutKast manager Michael “Blue” Williams adds that “We're run by corporations now. We have accountants running two of the four majors right now and they don't get it. It's a numbers game. And music has always been a feelings game.” (2)
How does that hurt music quality more than anything else could? Comments Toure, contributing editor from Rolling Stone magazine, “You've got to have this record done, by this day, so that we can get it out by this day, so we can have, you know, most of your earnings in our second quarterly statement, so that we don't get fired when the Germans call and say, "How much did you make this semester?" Mick Jagger does not want to finish his album by Aug. 12. […] But if he's racing to finish it by Aug. 12 because they're told that they have to, is that going to make for good art?” (2)

It seems that a number of artists are increasingly disgruntled by a music industry more bent on profit and cookie-cutter boy bands than on producing quality music. Says David Crosby, “Do I think they deserve to go in the tank, the big companies? Absolutely. They deserve what's going to happen to them completely. It's their own stupidity that's brought them to this point. And their own greed, and their own lack of taste.” (2) Adds singer Janis Ian, “in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money.” (3) No wonder that Aimee Mann and other artists created United Musicians in order to share resources, retain the copyright on their works and ensure the best conditions for their creativity to flourish. They decided that by uniting as artists and selling their songs on their websites they were stronger than a single label in a world of multinationals. (4)

My opponent says that profit losses due to file-sharing result in less artists being produced. I submit that the convergence in the music industry has produced a system where money-making styles and singers (who often can’t sing but look good on TV) get the lion’s share of the investments. The management models in the industry today have shifted the focus from creation to financial reports and sales. The advent of file-sharing had no impact on that system, nor did it increase or decrease the quality of the music produced. The only impact it had was on CD sales. The RIAA may be going on about the poor artists bearing the brunt of this, what’s really at stake here is cold, hard cash for shareholders.

In a nutshell, one can't say that figures showing the music industry losing money because of file-sharing automatically means that file-sharing has affected the quality of new music. It's comparing apples and oranges.

(1) bmi.com...

(2) www.pbs.org...

(3) www.janisian.com...

(4) www.unitedmusicians.com...

Otts has tasked me with providing a direct link between the decline of music quality and file-sharing. There is not a direct link between file-sharing and music quality in which every time a song is downloaded the music quality is lowered. However, there is a connection between the damage to the music industry by file-sharing and overall music quality as I provided in detail in my previous two posts. To put this link in context think about the Ivory trade. When someone purchases an ivory bookend does it help lead to the death of more elephants? Well not directly but yes there is a connection. When the purchase is made elephants aren’t mechanically shot down in Africa but by buying the ivory you increase the demand for that product which makes it more valuable. The demand for the ivory is funneled through the supply line until it reaches the poachers tasked with providing the ivory and then yes more elephants die due to your purchase. This is the same indirect connection file-sharing and music quality share.

Also to be clear Otts shares my view that money, or lack there of, is a cause of the lack of quality music available today.



Next Otts argues some music companies are doing quite well. Allow me to present you with another analogy to illuminate the futility of a few companies succeeding in the music industry. As we know the global music industry is declining and has been for the last four years, a proverbial sinking ship. Now pretend for a moment we are on this sinking ship and someone says compartments A-M are flooded but N and O are currently dry. We are still sinking into the depths of the ocean and ultimately all the compartments will fill with water and sink. So I ask you, what good are a few companies performing well when the entire industry is taking on water?

Lastly my opponent points out music industry management’s new money first mindset. I dealt with this issue in detail in my first post. What caused management to change into this money first music last mentality, there had to be a cause? The cause is the changing listening habits music fans have adopted since file-sharing has emerged on the scene. Music fans now have changed into a got to have it now impatient group. This changed the demand for the music industry which in turn changed the music industry management business model to an almost music manufacturing shop. As we all know music is a creation made from inspiration and emotion not a manufactured good. We now understand the cause and the effect has been a decrease in music quality.

Now let’s examine those who actually produce this music for us to enjoy, the artists. In the past these individuals got into the music industry because they were talented and they produced good music. These individuals mostly played their own instruments, started bands in their garages, and typically wrote their own music. This group of musicians included Elvis, Aerosmith, The Eagles, Rush, etc. and of course this list includes many more but I am limited in space and time. Today however, music artists are made. Most musicians today have no clue how to play an instrument of any kind, they just sing. Hardly any of them compose their own music, for the most part they are presented with someone else’s music and told to sing. This is a fatal flaw for when you sing someone else’s composition you are working on second hand emotion where if you had poured your own emotions into its creation the music could communicate with the listener much more easily. We even pick today’s pops stars off of TV shows, seriously the music industry is exceedingly diluted. But how is this connected to file-sharing you may ask?

As stated in my first post and above file-sharing has shaped the music listener and in effect the music industry into an instant gratification model society. People want new music and they want it now they want fresh new artists to download listen to, get tired of, and then they want someone new to listen to. Consequently, the music industry has changed accordingly produced more new faces than you can shake a stick at and the trend doesn’t appear to be slowing. However, new artists doesn’t equal quality music it simple guarantees momentary excitement and initial sales increases. After the newness wears off they are discarded aside by the listeners like so many before them.

File-sharing seemed harmless to begin with yet in the end it is destroying just what the file sharer covets—the music itself.

Regarding BMI’s financial success in 2004, I commend my opponent for his Titanic analogy. However, I will show that this analogy is not appropriate. For one, the music industry is not a monolithic unit, and record companies are not “compartments” on a ship. I suggest another analogy: imagine a coast, where many wooden houses are built on sand by the beach. The inhabitants put faith in a dyke they built to protect them from the battering sea. But then really bad hurricanes come, the sea level rises, and the inhabitants fight frantically to reinforce the dyke with sandbags. A few of them, however, decide to move their houses to higher ground and reinforce them in stone. They are the ones who survive while the dyke finally breaks and the other houses are washed away to sea… because they ADAPTED.

What we are seeing here is not the death of music, but a significant transition in how it is marketed and made available to the listener. We do not live in an unchanging world, and every business knows that when the circumstances change – as they did when we started the transition from the industrial age to the information age - you had better change with them or you sink. It’s called evolution. And this is why journalist Andrew Orlowski told the music industry last week to embrace file-sharing, which is here to stay, and turn it to their advantage. He recommended they push for a tax to be applied on Internet subscriptions, with royalties going (hopefully – you never know with the music industry) to the artists. (1)

This would not be new territory for the music industry. In the late 70’s, faced with a decrease in record sales due to the popularity of blank cassette tapes, the RIAA successfully lobbied for a tax on those tapes, which it got in the 80’s – case closed. So the pattern in the industry seems to be new technology – resistance – sales slump – lobbying and adaptation – profits. The industry has been through that cycle a few times already and survived. But right now, the industry is being hard-headed and is adamant on protecting its old business model, which has proved so profitable in the past.

My opponent says the industry has turned money-bent because of the onslaught of file-sharing. We are faced here with the classic debate of which came first, the chicken or the egg. There are plenty of articles out there saying that greed has been behind the industry’s actions since at least the eighties. I’ve quoted the fabulous PBS program, “The Way the Music Died”, where many artists, music journalists and industry players say that the “corporatization” of the music industry is what made it into a money-grubbing machine which rushes artists to record as fast as they can so the company can have a good fourth quarter with lots of sales to satisfy the shareholders. (2)

My opponent states that a change in the behaviour of music consumers is what made the industry into a frantic hit-producing machine it now is. Actually, while it’s true that about 30,000 new titles are released per year, a fraction of those get the promotion and airplay. One, because the record companies know to massively promote those they know will bring in the most money. Two, the radio landscape has gone through its own convergence and consolidation. Playlists have become more standardized, the number of current hits played has decreased, as has the number of new artists played. Far from transforming consumers into got-to-have-it-now fanatics, the music industry and the radio industry have bored them to tears with their lack of variety. (3) That would explain in part why many of them turn to file-sharing to find new music.

The industry hasn’t been feeding a crowd hungry for immediate gratification. For almost two decades, the industry has dictated the trends by massive promotion and airplay, and the consumers have followed. A lot of the artists who didn’t produce “brainless” music, a lot of those who were signed and recorded but lost money because they weren’t part of the few actually being marketed to the hilt, got increasingly disgruntled with the music industry and are now saying that maybe the current system deserves to die. It’ll make way for a new production and distribution model, and will help musicians recover their independence.

Says Kenny Love of ModernRock.com, “As independent artists-(many forcibly)-turned-business people, we simply must learn to think in a different realm regarding online technology, because so many potential fans can be reached through music file sharing whom would never learn of our music otherwise.” (4)

(1) www.dmeurope.com...

(2) www.pbs.org...

(3) www.zapoleon.com...

(4) news.modernrock.com...

Let’s review where we are in this debate for a moment. The question posed is whether file-sharing has had a detrimental effect on the overall quality of new music. Out of the gate Otts and I both agreed the quality of new music has declined in recent years. Secondly, we both agreed money, or lack thereof, did indeed affect the quality of new music produced.

Now to summarize the items either disputed or uncommented upon. I pointed out a survey that illustrated how file-sharing had changed society itself and most importantly the music fan. The change has caused new music to drift from its roots and to new homes in the “Pop” Genre. Music listeners are now a group of got to have it now instant gratification junkies.

Next I showed the financial damage caused by file sharing to the music industry. The music industry, globally, is suffering huge casualties at the hand of file-sharing. As both Otts and I agree a lack of money is extremely detrimental to the quality of music produced. So here in lies the most direct connection between file-sharing and the lack of quality music being produced today.

The heart of my distinguished opponent’s argument is file sharing is actually helping music quality by changing the industry or in other words causing portions of the music industry to head to higher grounds in order to avoid the imminent flood. However, the facts are clear; today and for the foreseeable future the music industry is hell-bent to stay the course regardless of the consequences. Otts can only point to speculation with hope and prophesize a brighter future for the music industry. I for one truly hope my adversary’s clairvoyant abilities are extremely keen for if the music industry continues on its current stubborn path it will surely die. However, the music industry has shown little signs of changing its ways. Even by making the right step and setting up legal online music stores, it maintained its money first mentality behind the scenes. Online music stores today online retain $0.04 of each $0.99 track making the legal practice almost unprofitable unless you have an iPod market to keep you afloat.

To conclude I would like to point out a few simple points. File-sharing has been shown to damage the music industry. The music industry has suffered great losses over the last 4 years. Opportunities for musicians have decreased as a result of the lack of money. New musicians are put on the scene for the sake of being new to satisfy new listener standards. The Recording industry is determined not to change its ways all the while taking on more damage. In the end I have shown that file-sharing has had a detrimental effect upon new music quality, just follow the cause and effect.

Thank you Otts for a very delightful debate and may the best person win!

In French, we have a saying – “avoir le dos large”, to have a large back, is to take a lot of blame upon oneself. In this context, file sharing has a “large back”. It takes the flak for the music industry’s woes, the lack of quality of new music on file sharing, etc., when the real problem is elsewhere.

The RIAA wants you to believe that because the music industry is suffering, the poor artists are losing money. I have shown that a good number of artists – some of them big names like David Crosby or OutKast – believe that the music industry no longer understands the artists, that it is ruled by attorneys and brokers whose only preoccupation is to make money. I have shown that some artists who sign contracts with big record companies actually lose money, as well as a good part of their independence. What does this all mean? That progressively, a good number of artists are distancing themselves from the big record companies. These artists now believe that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if these record companies died – it would clear the field for a new model which would restore a measure of independence to the artists.

My opponent believes that the music industry has turned money-grubbing because of the losses from file sharing. I have quoted some experts from the field and some artists who say that the industry has visited its current woes upon itself, because of its greed. The series of mergers and consolidations in the industry in the eighties and nineties has created an inefficient, bloated machine catering not to the artist, but to the shareholder. Music quality is not important to this machine – good financial results in the fourth quarter are. The drive to promote big money-cow artists and the parallel consolidation in the radio industry has reduced the amount of new (and quality) music made available to listeners. No wonder they’re bored to tears.

So in the end, I have shown that file sharing has had no impact on the quality of music. If the music’s rotten, it’s because of the current business model used in the music industry. Furthermore, file sharing does not impact artists as much as stifling contracts with big companies do. While it’s true that artists need money to produce music, they haven’t been getting much from the music industry – and if the industry manages to get a tax on Internet subscriptions to compensate for its losses from file sharing, one has to wonder if the artists will really benefit from that. On the other hand, some artists are starting to see that if they’re business-minded enough, they can profit from the Internet and file sharing, retain more independence and get better exposure for their product.

The record companies may die, the industry will adapt. The music will live on, and maybe be better off for it.

My deepest thanks to Blackjackal for sharing this debate with me, and best of luck!

Ok, just got back from the shop with an esky full of ice cold judges, will set them to work.

Sorry for the delay, results are in, and BlackJackal has won by a margin of 6-4. Well done and thankyou to Otts.

Some Judges comments:










BlackJackal takes one step closer to retaining his title, good luck in round 3.