[JuZ]

What you'll probably find is that it's more about the process of exploring it and the argument you build, rather than "you must convince me that it's ok to download"

Agreed. Your teacher should be marking you on your ability to research the subject, develop and then present your case. Research is such a key element of debating, so read, read and read some more.... you'll come up with heaps of great ideas! Quotes from artists defending file-sharing etc. would also be of benefit... if it's not in their interests to defend it, it's hard to see why they would, right?

Tell them you bought St. Anger, and it made you St. Angry.

Yanko makes good points. You can include the fact that many unknown bands support downloading for exposure and that it helps the artists in those cases. For the major artists, aren't they making enough money from concerts, merch, endorsements, etc. as it is? So it isn't as if they are being impoverished by downloaders. As already stated, it's not like they make much off their record sales anyway.

The band Sparks express concern re: net downloading only so far as it tends to 'fragment' artistic creations in favor of "hit" mantality.Since it seem far and away the most common result of these download experience are"compilations" of artists rather than Whole album experiences. In cases of music like Devy's for instance this can be particulary disembodying. So is an album a painting, or is it a mini art show ment to be experienced as a whole. Understanding the other side of the artistic side of the issue may help you form a more informed argument reguarding the FUTURE of the digital distribution modal

What you'll probably find is that it's more about the process of exploring it and the argument you build, rather than "you must convince me that it's ok to download"

It's an oral composition class, so most of my grade will be based on how I present it to the class. It's a debate format, so I have to compete with someone that is against music piracy. The person who presents the best and has the best arguments gets the better grade.

-Millionaires don't need more money
-Smaller bands get themselves known better

It's an oral composition class, so most of my grade will be based on how I present it to the class. It's a debate format, so I have to compete with someone that is against music piracy. The person who presents the best and has the best arguments gets the better grade.

That is really cruel! I had similar tasks when I went to school, but they did not affect our grade at all, they were just meant as training in making good points in an argument.

You might want to read this:

http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html

Jesus, that is comprehensive. My new favorite thing. Linking it on my website later today. THANK YOU

I don't know if I buy that Courtney Love wrote that.

The author is wrong about a few things though. I used to run an internet radio station whose purpose was simple: to allow anyone to upload their music and we would play it. Listeners could rate music as it was played (similar to Pandora) so that truly good stuff was played more than truly terrible stuff. It was the best of both worlds, communism and capitalism living together in rare harmony.

Thing was, you couldn't force people to listen to it. Maybe if I had had a $5 million advertising budget, but even other DIY guys in my regional scene didn't understand it. One guy who ran a major site/zine in a major city once argued with me for a week over email: "I think your service would be better if you just let people download what they like." I couldn't convince him that this was all new music never heard before, and visitors don't yet know what they like. It was agonizing.

I also saw so many people in the scene telling me "fuck Clear Channel, fuck big business, blah blah blah" and after I'd been struggling the thing along for almost two years, Clear Channel opened their "New Music Network" basically doing what I was doing and in a blink of an eye practically everyone flocked to Clear Channel - especially those who bitched the loudest about CC.

We can complain as loudly as we want about changing the music industry, but the only thing that's ever really going to change the industry is when people as a whole no longer care about the industry.

(I tell this story sometimes and people say "I only ever listen to indie music, I buy everything I hear, you're just a loser who doesn't know how to run a business." That may very well be true! But if you believe that there isn't even a bit of a hive-mind thing going on with the general public giving the content distributors the right to dictate what gets popular, you're insane.)

The thing I found suprising about that article was that it shows a complicated issue that has many sides not just two.She rightfully calls for a revolution in thinking about these issues not just more rehashing and polarised debate. There needs nearly a whole new deffinition of these relationships. So far, most of the arguments both for and against seem to tread tired ground and represent two dimentinional thinking.

The thing I found suprising about that article was that it shows a complicated issue that has many sides not just two.She rightfully calls for a revolution in thinking about these issues not just more rehashing and polarised debate. There needs nearly a whole new deffinition of these relationships. So far, most of the arguments both for and against seem to tread tired ground and represent two dimentinional thinking.

You may also talk about the lack of music diversity on radios (I recently read there was some illegal agreement between big radios and majors in the US), all the same crap being played over and over again, as well as more talkshow and less music.

Internet radios are a sort of solution to that, but recently there's some talks about increasing internet radios fees again (in the US), which would pretty much mean the end of most of 'em.

Internet radios are a sort of solution to that, but recently there's some talks about increasing internet radios fees again (in the US), which would pretty much mean the end of most of 'em.

Yeah, again, it's because people want to listen to Britney Spears. I didn't have that problem with what I was doing on my station, but then again nobody wanted to listen.

Ha ?
Well I've read that on somaFM, which hosts some pretty good radios (mostly ambient, downtempo tunes), relatively well-known, but not enough to generate enough profit to survice with $1 million dollars of licensing fees
( http://somafm.com/ )

[JuZ]

We're fortunate enough in Australia to have a taxpayer-funded national youth radio broadcaster called Triple J (JJJ) that plays quite a lot of independently-produced or less commercially influenced music. We also have a taxpayer-funded national tv service (ABC) that has been running an outstanding music video program for many a year now, called Rage. If it weren't for these, and the locally based independent stations in each city, the internet would be the only way to hear anything remotely new and interesting.

I got into Devin's music (Sex and Religion aside) as a result of illegal file-sharing and I've since spent quite a sum on CDs, merch and gigs. What's my point? Maybe I don't have one. I guess it's that anyone who paints "piracy" as a purely black-and-white issue is naive, and something as simple as myspace or iTunes isn't going to change much. I really should read that article when I get a bit of time!

We're fortunate enough in Australia to have a taxpayer-funded national youth radio broadcaster called Triple J (JJJ) that plays quite a lot of independently-produced or less commercially influenced music. We also have a taxpayer-funded national tv service (ABC) that has been running an outstanding music video program for many a year now, called Rage. If it weren't for these, and the locally based independent stations in each city, the internet would be the only way to hear anything remotely new and interesting.

We have taxpayer-funded radio and TV in the states too but all they seem to do is bitch about the government. Somethin' fishy there...

[JuZ]

Ha! Most government funded or independent organisations do seem to have a left-of-centre viewpoint, don't they? I wonder why that is. Sorry, shouldn't hijack the man's topic so.