Help me figure out a good way to word my speech statement...

October 18, 2007 5:47 PM

Help me figure out a good way to word my speech statement

Ok, so I have to write a speech for my public speaking class. It is a persuasive speech, and I have to submit a statement that describes what I am trying to persuade the audience to do. So, I have decided to make my speech about the negatives of the RIAA, DRM, and buying music from major record labels in general. I'm having a hard time putting this into a proper statement. I keep coming back to something like "You shouldn't purchase music because....". I don't want to sound like I hate music and musicians in general, I just can't figure out the right wording.


Hive mind I need your help!!!

posted by zacharyseibert to writing & language (14 comments total)

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.

There was a study I read about years ago that concluded that, in order to understand a negative statement, the listener first had to absorb the positive version of the statement. Ie, "You shouldn't purchase music because..." provokes the listener to consider why you should.

I would suggest explaining why buying DRM-free music is a good thing. For example, artists who are not chained to the major labels probably receive a greater percentage of the purchase price. Support new artists! Buy DRM-free music! In this way, you demonstrate your positive support for music, musicians and popular culture, and avoid sounding like a nattering nabob of negativism.
posted by SPrintF at 5:52 PM on October 18, 2007

If you focused on the DRM part, you could say something about the fact that music should be yours to do with as you please after you buy it--because you own it.
posted by DMan at 5:52 PM on October 18, 2007

"When you purchase music, only X percent goes to the artist. The record companies take X percent. But CDs only cost x amount to make. That's X dollars in profit that doesn't go to the artist!"

Give examples of artists who say this percentage is unfair and who are opposed to DRM.
posted by desjardins at 5:59 PM on October 18, 2007

Ask whose birthday it is, or was recently. Suggest the class start singing Happy Birthday. Cut them off at the first line: your point will be that if the RIAA had their way, as this is a public place, to sing that song (or any other song) unlicensed by its "owner" would be illegal.

Bring a textbook with a bike lock on it, and a key. Mention that, if you were the publisher of that textbook, you could unlock this book for someone, but it would cost them money. Flourish the key. And you can't show it to anyone else, or make notes from it. Bring up the point that the author had to do the work of writing it once, and can copy it as many times as he/she likes, but you the publisher get to keep the key forever.

Copyright used to be for fourteen years, because that was enough time to have an exclusive right to profit before everyone else should be allowed to copy the thing freely. Then it was linked to the death of the author, because apparently, they ought to be able to work once and get paid for the rest of their lives. Note that corporations are now, nominally, considered "authors". Ask how long corporations live.

Bring in the oldest computer game you can find. (Something from the 80's would be ideal.) Ask if anyone would buy this game to take it home and play. Ask if the publisher is deprived of any income if people copy it, since it's not actually for sale anywhere. Mention that that computer game will stay under copyright until somewhere around 2054, give or take - or forever, if the RIAA have its way.

Ask who uses BitTorrent to download the latest shows, but don't ask for a show of hands. Why is that illegal? You could set up a TV here in the classroom, and tune it to a station, and watch shows, even record it ... but you can't get the same show off the 'net. Why?

Talk up the knowledge cornucopia that would (could) come from end of copyright as we know it: the prospect that everyone can know everything, and therefore think about it and discuss it and comment on it and improve on it. Perhaps mention how this would allow the fittest ideas to prosper, and the weak ideas to fail. Look up Boldrin & Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" for further ideas.

Best of luck. :)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:14 PM on October 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Do you have to try to persuade them to do something, or would it be acceptable to persuade them to *think* something? Could the point of your speech be that you shouldn't think the RIAA cares about music or musicians? That you shouldn't believe that music, musicians, or audiences are going to benefit from the policies they advocate? You're not telling people to copy music or anything like that. You're telling them to take the RIAA's statements with a grain of salt and to consider other ways of thinking about the issues they talk about.
posted by craichead at 6:17 PM on October 18, 2007

Ask yourself this question: What are you trying to convince the audience of?

Your speech is not "about the negatives . . . ." It is a persuasive speech. That means you're trying to convince the audience of something. What is it?

Are you trying to convince them that the current approach of the RIAA in supporting the implementation of DRM in music distribution is bad for the consumer? Bad for the industry? Bad for both the consumer and the industry? Bad for artists?

Be specific in stating exactly what you're trying to convince the audience of. That is your statement.

You are not just trying to convince people not to buy music since, presumably, you're not seeking an end to the production of music altogether. You seem to be trying to convince people that they should get their music through means that do not reward the RIAA for its advocacy of DRM and that do not reward major labels.

"The purpose of this speech is to demonstrate that the current policy of the RIAA and major labels in advocating DRM in music distribution is damaging to both the people who make music and the people who listen to it, and to convince the audience that the most effective way to steer the music industry toward a regime that is favorable to consumers and musicians alike is to refuse to purchase music distributed subject to digital rights management measures."

Something like that. But please don't use that, as I don't want to be doing your homework for you.
posted by The World Famous at 6:22 PM on October 18, 2007

Good stuff already...wow. Just to clarify, they don't necessarily have to *do* something, the speech can be to persuade them to think or feel some way too.


Thanks guys!
posted by zacharyseibert at 6:34 PM on October 18, 2007

When I'm giving a speech, I like to think aloud, with support and research.

"So why is the RIAA wrong? They're following the laws, and we're breaking them, right?

Well, if we're breaking the laws, why aren't they winning court cases left and right? Why are so many people against them?

Because these people support artists, and realize that the RIAA is failing to adapt. [Insert statistics & research]"

It's just my speaking style, maybe you'll find it natural?
posted by theiconoclast31 at 6:40 PM on October 18, 2007

It might be more work than you want to follow through with, but sometimes you can get interest by phrasing it as a "how to" for a negative thing. (Taking into account SPrintF's advice.) For example:
-How to Ensure Good Music Becomes Rare.
-How to See Your Favorite Singer Working at McDonald's.
-5 Ways to Make Sure You Never Hear Good Music Again

etc
posted by The Deej at 6:49 PM on October 18, 2007

You shouldn't by major label music because you dont think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Neil Young are worth your money.

Seriously, the major label = evil statment is such a gross oversimplification as to border on just outright mistakenness. The RIAA is supposed to look after the corporate interests of labels, not the creative ones. They are divorced.

@desjardins: your statement is ludicrous. So, you're saying all we do is spend some money to print shiny plastic discs and pieces of paper with tracklistings on them and then sit back and count our money? You are neglecting marketing costs, publicity costs, photo shoots, licensing fees, company overhead (i.e. paying the people who distribute and promote the music, costs associated with getting a band out on tour, paying publishers, and i could go on. your cost-manufacturing cost is just the tip of the iceberg.

end defensive major label employee rant.
posted by softlord at 7:24 PM on October 18, 2007

If this is your first time writing a speech, may I be a bit of a wayward advice giver and suggest you choose an easier topic? It seems like DRM is a somewhat complicated question, involving additional complex issues like fair use, the changing situation when we moved from analog to digital duplication, and the spread of the internet and the technologies involved. So, if you can think of another issue you feel strongly about that might be a better idea.

If you want to keep this topic, I'd suggest against trying to convince people not to purchase DRM music. You're not going to win any points convincing people to not buy their records. If you've ever had someone tell you you're going to hell because of your beliefs you know why this is a bad idea -- don't try to convince people that what they like is bad.

Instead, try to really help music and write a speech encouraging people to explore more unknown artists. This way, your job is much easier:
1) Tell people that there are new, local, smaller artists that also write good music
2) Tell them sources for this music: local music stores, small concert venues, etc
3) Tell them the advantage of supporting local musicians -- money goes back to the community, more money goes to the artists

This "solves the problem", in a sense, without having to make a speech that attacks the tastes or behaviors of your listeners.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:28 PM on October 18, 2007

You shouldn't by major label music because you dont think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Neil Young are worth your money.

No, those bands (except for Led Zep) are worth my money. It's your salary I resent having to pay for.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:06 PM on October 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cory Doctorow speaks about this topic, and he is an outstanding speaker. Read his speeches and imitate his style.

http://www.dashes.com/anil/stuff/doctorow-drm-ms.html

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/cory-doctorow-copyright-tech-media_cz_cd_books06_1201doctorow.html

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/020jun06/features/video_doctorow/
posted by gmarceau at 6:03 AM on October 19, 2007

The following links contain arguments against DRM, the RIAA and major record labels:
Reasons to Get Rid of the Major Record Labels
Anti-DRM Resources
Frequently Awkward Questions for the Entertainment Industry (Google Cache)*
Cory Doctorow's DRM Talk at MRG
Sony DRM Debacle Roundup
Sony BMG Litigation Info (Google Cache)*

* Note: The EFF website was not resolving when I posted this so I included links to the Google cache of the articles.

They all have different approaches, arguments and audiences.

Perhaps you can go through them and write down all the arguments (or wording) that you (personally) found persuasive.

Then take your list and shorten it (through elimination) to find the argument/wording that best suits your speech. Once you have that, rewrite it to fit your speech and your audience.

As mentioned above, focus on positives (benefits of exploring/supporting independent artists and transferring drm-free music you paid for to your cell phone/pda/music player) rather than negatives (don't buy major record label music because they do this and that). People don't like to be told what to do and major record labels dig their own grave with their questionable business practices (rootkits, payola and lawsuits against consumers).

Also, you may want to mention legal aspects as well because there is a lot of misinformation out there. For example, Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer says copying music you own is stealing. This is simply not true. In Court's View, MP3 Player is Just a 'Space Shifter'. We all have a legal right to space-shift (transfer music we own to our cell phone, PDA, personal music player or car stereo). DRM violates this legal right in order to increase revenue streams for major music labels (like Sony BMG).

During your presentation, remember to speak slowly. The excitement of being on stage sharing something you are passionate about tends to increase talking speed.

Be sure to explain any technical terms/concepts in language that card-carrying Luddites would understand.

Good luck!
posted by stringbean at 6:54 AM on October 19, 2007