Second Opposing Speech
Dear readers, I hope you don't mind about having to read the same arguments all over again. Unfortunately, people fall short when it comes to justify things they are deeply ashamed of. We're certainly not here to teach ethics, to try to make you feel guilty about downloading a few songs you'd love to own without having to pay for it. [...]
We're trying to make you realize that Hadopi is not a law that concerns occasional downloading and that it's pointless to make it look like an evil unfair one. It also appears this law is definitely a way to protect people from seeing the product of their work stolen away.
Thinking the law is misconceived and should therefore be modified only shows ones don't really know what Hadopi law is all about. In fact, the time where people downloading music illegally and paying 5 000 euros is definitely over. Today, the worst thing that could ever happen to you is the shutdown of your internet connection. Only something to make a child afraid of the hypothetic reaction of his parents when they found out he listens to Justin Bieber.
I worship the readers of the Friday Debate Blog, and I believe they understand what this is truly about. Downloading some songs because you are curious about an artist is of course all right, and Hadopi law is not meant to catch occasional downloaders. The only reason why people want to abrogate a law that don't even concern them is because it troubles their conscience. It's nice to talk about Johnny Halliday and his million dollars (and even the conversion in euros!), but I wouldn't risk my internet connection for his music, and you shouldn't either. The truth is, there are still a few artists struggling to survive being professional musicians.
Nowadays, people tend to talk about the decay of the music's quality. Maybe stopping thinking that artists are able to make concerts to earn their lives would be a good start. Artists could finally start focusing on what they really should do to produce good music, and this takes place in a studio. Giving artists the opportunity to record their albums in more than a week would surely increase the top 50's quality.
I believe everything has been said to help you make the good choice. If you don't do it for yourself, think about the future generations. We're already leaving them an ecological tragedy, I'm sure you don't want to tell them it's also your fault they are now listening to bad music.
Thank you for reading, vote for us!
SJ
Dear SJ,
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about artists as if they were poor and struggling to get some meat for their meal. And what is this decay of music's quality? Never heard of it... mind giving some quote? Even if all of that was true, don't you think that they could use this suffering to produce the masterpiece of their career as many artists have done before them?
I also want to point out that you didn't really rebut on the fact that in 2009, the number of entries in cinemas was the highest ever recorded. It seems a little weird that this number would increase whereas the number of illegal downloads is also increasing. Well, I think that it is simply a matter of atmosphere. Yes, you can download illegally a movie that is not yet on-screen, yes you can download a movie where Angelina Jolie loses again her clothes without any reasons, BUT you can't download the atmosphere that you can only find in a cinema. It's the same for a concert, you can buy or download a live show but it will never be the same, it will never be better. So, maybe we should try to fully understand the effects of illegal downloads before making some law (made only to scare people) and maybe try to follow the evolution of the Internet where nowadays most new softwares tend to be free (Mozilla,facebook,google, Wikipedia...) and still make a lot of money.
AB