The topic for this debate is "If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet".

Chissler will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Intrepid will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows. It still pays to be clear and concise though.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 48 hours. Extensions and extended breaks for the holidays will be permitted.

This is a non-elimination tournament. 2 ranking points are awarded for participation and 2 more for each victory. Each member of the winning team recieves 2 additional points.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

Allow me to begin by thanking those that have provided us this opportunity, and those that are taking the time to read and offer an opinion on what we have to say here. We're going to see some stiff competition, and we're all going to have a lot of fun. So to all who read this, especially my ol' pal across the table, intrepid, I thank you for taking the time to participate.

Now that we went and got that out the way, let's get this puppy rolling.

Our topic of interest here is, "If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet". Now this really is a simple subject matter, and my approach here will be very straight forward.

If we are to approach this in the manner that is necessary, an emphasis needs to be placed on what is actually being said. If a person legally owns a copy of a copyrighted file, this is how this one is coined. Emphasis here, legally. As we progress through this debate, I will focus on this aspect of the subject matter and we will see clearly that this is the crux of the matter. We are not talking about documents retrieved through P2P file sharing programs. What we are talking about is documents that are legally owned by the individual.

Do we really want the government telling us what we can do with documents that we legally own? If a musician creates his own music, is he legally permitted to share that document via the internet? Of course he is. What tangible reason is there to state that the internet is not a means of spreading information that is legally owned by the sender?

All of these are questions that I will engage and I will answer throughout this debate.

While it is important to emphasize what is in play here, it is also important to realize what is not. This is not a discussion on the legality or ethics behind illegal P2P file sharing programs. When we consider what Napster was back in 2000 and 2001, and what other programs such as KaZaA, LimeWire, The Pirate Bay, etc., have become since.. none of this is applicable to our discussion here. Why? Because our subject matter is strictly directed towards individuals that legally possess a copy of a copyright protected file. And none of the aforementioned possess the ownership to these files.

If they own it, who are we to say what they can do with it? If they own it, is there a victim? No. So, why not?

The world has never seen anything like the internet before. Information can be exchanged at lightning speeds. When we consider individuals that could use this technology to improve themselves, and to help market their own files, why would we even consider cutting this means of communication off to them?

"If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet"

Why not?

'trep, the table is yours and I look forward to your response.

Greetings chissler. I would also like to add my thanks to those that took the time to set up this debate and those that take the time to read it. I hope we can make it enjoyable for everyone.

"If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet".

My position on this will ALSO focus on the legality of "product x"(a given file). Be it written word, document, music file, etc., and how far do the rights go for the owner of said files. I, however, will not limit myself in such a narrow manner. chissler mentions that Napster, et. al. should not be brought into the discussion because of the illegality of "peer to peer"(P2P) sharing. This can't be further from the truth as the products shared there BEGAN as legally owned copyrighted material for the most part. This is the crux of the matter.

I will be focusing on ownership rights vs proprietary rights. Where does one begin and the other end. To my knowledge there are only 3 ways for someone to own something legally. By creating product x(author), by the author giving the product to another or the author selling his product, either directly or through a distributer that the author has chosen to represent his interests. As we progress I will also delve into what "copyright" means.

The internet is a HUGE beast. Vast amounts of information is being shared and this is being done by BILLIONS of mostly anonymous people. This anonymity gives some the belief, no, the feeling of safety, that they can share files at will. As we progress I will show that this is not only illegal but that just because everyone is doing it that doesn't make it legal.

NOW that we have defined the parameters of the discussion, back to you chissler.

What is Right, What is Wrong, & What is Necessary...

The creation of the wheel was a major step for the human race. It allowed us to perform tasks that were once laughable. As we evolved, so did our inventions and our technology. With each major step, we have created both positives and negatives. The wheel, it has allowed us to get to a loved one much quicker. But it has also allowed criminals to escape with their loot at a quicker pace. The internet, it does many great things. But it also allows some individuals a means of breaking the law in ways that were once laughable.

But here's the kicker, we are not in the business of withholding technology because a few bad apples are going to use it for less than ideal uses.

Would we consider doing away with the wheel so we could keep a tighter lid on criminals? So why would anyone ever suggest that individuals should not be permitted to legally share a document that they own, via the internet, because a few bad apples do it illegally.

Yes, illegal P2P file sharing happens on a daily basis. Some of you who read this may be illegally downloading a song as you read this. That's the reality we live. But that is not a reason to justify cutting off this means for individuals to operate in a legal manner.

If I legally own a file, then I am within my own right to share that file in any way that I choose. If I wish to hand it to you, mail it to you, or send it to you via the internet, that is, and should be, my own right. Who has the right to say otherwise?

If we were to consider this stance for a moment and we were to state that individuals who legally own the rights to a file should not be permitted to share this file via the internet, because there are those who exploit it, would we utilize this approach to other aspects of our life? Should we restrict the speed and horse power in automobiles so criminals can no longer run from the police? Should we do away with fire arms so criminals stop having a means of defending themselves.

No, we're not going to do any of those things.

Originally posted by intrepid
The internet is a HUGE beast. Vast amounts of information is being shared and this is being done by BILLIONS of mostly anonymous people. This anonymity gives some the belief, no, the feeling of safety, that they can share files at will. As we progress I will show that this is not only illegal but that just because everyone is doing it that doesn't make it legal.

So because it occurs illegally, we should do away with file sharing all together? Where would that stance leave our society if we were to adapt that in all walks of life?

It's Only Logical...

This is a very simple issue. If I legally own the file, why shouldn't I be able to utilize this means? My opponent has stated because people do it illegally. So because others exploit it, honest and hard working people should not be granted this luxury?

That's not exactly logical.

---

---

Get your dancing shoes on 'trep, the floor is yours.

What is Relevant & What is not...

My opponent continues to emphasize on this one point, and I am confident that you the reader are capable of seeing through this approach. The tactic we are seeing here is relying heavily on copyright laws and what exactly they are. While the definitions are useful in a sense, they have no place in this debate.

This is not a debate on copyright violations.

Nowhere in our subject matter here is it open to discuss the legality of what is occurring on a daily basis. File sharing is illegal, and it is wrong. But our subject matter is not that.

"If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet."

Please, take the time to closely read the subject of this debate and you will see that the approach of my opponent is completely off it's mark. What is applicable here is an individual who has authored a book and wishes to market this piece of literature over the internet. My opponent will have you believe that this individual is not legally permitted to market his own work over the internet. Why wouldn't he? If he could sell it to stores, or go door to door himself, we would have no problem with that. So why are we going to tell this individual that he can not sell his own work over the internet.

Now my opponent will have you believe that we are here to discuss the people who buy this book, and then try to share it themselves. But that is not the case. Remember that title, a person who legally owns a copyrighted protected file. Hence, the author of the material.

If independent bands are coming up and trying to make a name for themselves, are they not permitted to share their work over the internet? No? My opponent would have you believe this. But where is the logic behind that?

As we evolve, more and more means of communication are moving to the online community. It's not that far of a stretch to think that in a certain amount of years that newspapers are going to be finite, and that we'll read our papers online. More and more information is being transferred through the world wide web with each day, so it is the only logical step that we allow the legal owners of copyrighted files to share their property via the internet.

Originally posted by intrepid
Consider "copyright". The word alone says it all. The author has the "right" to "copy", NOT the owner of said product. The only reason that the owner has "ownership" is because he PAID the author for personal ownership. NOT copyright privileges. That is much more expensive.

You are exactly right. What you speak of is spot on. But none of it is applicable. The individuals we are speaking of here already possess the copyright privileges to the file. So by your own admission, individuals who possess the copyright privileges to a file can legally share the file via the internet.

So while your information is correct, it is not relevant. What is relevant is what is logical.

For those of you that are reading this debate, please take the time to read what is being said and what the topic is. My opponent has openly stated that individuals who possess copyright privileges should be able to share the file via the internet, which is completely contradictory of his assigned position for this debate.

'trep, my friend, tighten the dancing shoes and hit the floor. This song is yours.

I say potato, you say potahto

Originally posted by chissler
Please, take the time to closely read the subject of this debate and you will see that the approach of my opponent is completely off it's mark. What is applicable here is an individual who has authored a book and wishes to market this piece of literature over the internet. My opponent will have you believe that this individual is not legally permitted to market his own work over the internet. Why wouldn't he? If he could sell it to stores, or go door to door himself, we would have no problem with that. So why are we going to tell this individual that he can not sell his own work over the internet.

What? At no time did I say that the author of a product couldn't sell, share, give, "copy", destroy for that matter, anything that s/he had authored. That is the "right" of the author. But that is NOT the issue here:

The debate title:

"If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file, then that person should be able to legally share that file via the internet."

Let's look at "copy".

Onelook Dictionary:

noun: a secondary representation of an original (Example: "She made a copy of the designer dress")

The author possess the ORIGINAL product and can use it as s/he sees fit. We are not talking about that but secondary representations of the authors work. And if you purchased a "copy", or been given one by the author, you have possession of that but as I pointed out in my last post, you do NOT have the "right" of "copy".

Why do artists create work in their medium. Most probably do it because they love their work BUT wouldn't it be fair to say that they would also want to make a living out of what they love to do? You've heard the term "staving artist", the one that pains him/herself to create a product. Sometimes it's years before they "make it". Sometimes it's a lifetime. A person that buys the product must see value in it or why purchase it? Does the author not deserve payment for the work and time put in? Sharing takes that away from the author. What if the artist can no longer continue the work because s/he has to hold down a job like the rest of us? No further work would be coming from the artist. One could say that sharing stifles creativity. For people with talent, they SHOULD be compensated. For the rest of us that don't have talent, there's the lottery.

Some have countered with, "How much money does the artist need?" in cases of artists that have already "made it". Same author, new product. Just because they are making a decent living off of their work doesn't mean that they no longer should be compensated. What a dangerous precedent to set for those still up and coming. Thus the need for copyright laws.

Is It The Last Waltz Already...?

I take my hat off to my opponent here for making the stance that he has. The stance he has been forced to take goes against technology, goes against everything that our society craves, and it simply goes against logic. What he wishes is that we use the internet for our own leisure, but refrain from allowing artists and authors to use it for their own profit. His reasoning for this? Because if allowed, the select few will break subjective laws.. so we should just prevent it all together.

If we really think about this for a moment, where would it take us?

Prevent all vehicles from going a certain speed, because criminals abuse this luxury to run from police? Vehicles today go fast because we like it. Because we like it, we allow certain individuals the ability to exploit it. It's the world we live.

We allow individuals to share files over the internet, and we hope that they operate within the expectations of our laws. Some do, some don't. But we're not going to prevent those from doing it legally, just because others do not abide by these subject social standards. The good prosper, and we hold the bad accountable. Is that not the premise that our society is based?

If my opponent had his way, we would abolish this means of file transfer all together.

But this is to protect the little guy. What my opponent fails to acknowledge is the harm that this will do to the little guy. It is these guys that depend on file transfers over the internet to have their name recognizable.

I opened this debate with a clear and succinct approach. As stated, this is a simple matter. When we get into subject issues like this one, we need to go with what makes sense. Why would we make our lives difficult by ignoring this means of communication? Think of the production costs that would be saved by independent artists who prefer to transfer their files in the digital world as opposed to producing records.

To wrap up my last song and dance here, I simply ask that the members reading this take the time to weigh both sides and go with what makes sense. I have provided simple logic and a strong representation of where we are heading as a society. We live in a digital age and file sharing on the world wide web is what we have in front of us. In opposition of my stance, my good friend has provided some definitions of the terms listed in opening statement. This is important, as we need to know exactly what we're discussing.

But at the end of the day, it's all about what makes sense. And if any of us actually believe that the internet is not the way of the future, then I ask you what is? The days of the printing press are over. It's all about digital, it's all about bigger, better, and faster.

We have the technology, let's use it.

Let's continued to evolve and avoid stagnation.

Sorry for the late judgement guys.
The winner is intrepid by a count of 32-22 at 9:30pm pacific on Feb 3 2008