Second proposing speech
Hello dear readers,
First of all, I would like to rebut what my opponent XS said. Indeed, he testified that by illegally downloading songs on internet, people would reduce the money earned by artists and destroy the "artistic world". It is a well-known fact (but obviously not for XS) that an artist earns only 9% of the price of a CD : for example an album sold for 20€ will bring less than 2€ to the artist. The income of an artist is not principally assured by the sale of its albums. They earned most of their money with concerts and appearance at festivals (to get an idea, the price to get Johnny Hallyday is around 600,000€) […]
It's true that iTunes Store offers to download songs for 0.99€ (or 1.29€) but still it is too expansive because downloading the complete album will cost around 15€. Moreover, downloading songs means that they're stored in the computer, which means that you don't get the CD nor the CD case (which is in my opinion an important stuff), so you can't use it in your car for example and by burning the songs on a CD, people may think that you illegally downloaded it...
Furthermore, downloading songs for free is in fact some kind of advertising, as my colleague said in his speech. People who can't afford to buy them could still enjoy!
It is normal that these people recover the fruits of their labor. Therefore, one can understand that laws need to be created to set limits. This need comes up against a fact: to prohibit illegal downloading will not prevent million of people from buying products (be it albums or movies) in the nearest Fnac. Like it or not, download and listen to streaming are the future, and any attempt to preserve the current models will result in failure.
Most of all, by banning the access to internet for those who download illegally, this law will come into conflict with civil liberties and human rights. Indeed, you can't deprive someone of getting connected, having access to international news, or logging on social network (to get/remain in touch with friends or whatever).
Nevertheless, if the opposing team dares talk about movies, I would stop them immediately. Indeed, on the one hand, the producers earn money depending of the number of entries, the rewards of the movie and derivatives. For example, Georges Lucas is still getting lot of money thanks to the Star Wars derivatives. Concerning the actors, their salary don't depend on the sale of the movie or any derivatives. You are obviously thinking that if the producers earn less, then the actors will be less paid; in my opinion it won't hurt them that much. For example, Jean Dujardin is paid 2 million euros per film and Julia Roberts around 20 million dollars (~15 million euros). On the other hand, downloading movies at home don't prevent people from going to the cinemas to enjoy a good quality image and sound! Funny fact : while illegal downloading of movies was spreading around, the number of entries in cinemas had never been so high (200 million of spectators in 2009 in France, a complete record).
Nowadays, world has changed and is still changing. Industries, artists and consumers have been able to adapt to new technologies. So before voting for a law that's going to encroach one's human rights and going against the society's evolution, get up, stand up and vote for us, vote for your rights!