There are many side arguments on the other side of my issue that may be hard to refute. The topic of my paper is file-sharing, and downloading music is illegal. I think that the fact that downloading music is illegal and that it violates copyrighted material will be hard to argue against. Another argument that goes along with this, is the idea that musicians work long and hard for their music and it is artistic talent that is being taken away.
It is hard to argue against the idea that downloading music wrong because a person downloads something that is copyrighted, because many people believe that if something is copyrighted, people shouldn’t be able to copyright it. Many people would think that if we allow copyrighted music to be downloaded for free, then what other copyrighted material may be next? It is also hard to argue against the idea of musicians deserving credit for their artistic work that they have put into their music. This is hard to argue against because it is a general value that people have that people should be paid for the work that they do. When people put lots of time into making an album, they should be compensated for that work, rather than have people receive all of their music for free.
I think that I plan on refuting both of these arguments in the same way. Discrediting the premises would probably be most effective. I could argue that in the music industry, almost all music is borrowed. Many songs have been re-written, multiple “different” songs contain the same beats and musical themes in the background, and musicians are always borrowing music from each other. Making this claim would discredit the premise that it would violate copyright laws, because in the music industry, is anything really truly original enough to merit a copyright if it is all borrowed from one another? This would also work with the idea that people work long and hard and deserve credit for their work, because if they are borrowing form other people, then they aren’t really working that hard.