Round 1. Chissler v Intrepid: (File) Sharing is Caring, Right?

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 we have heeya is a failure to communicate."

My opponent would have you believe that because you personally own a copy of a product, legally obtained by purchase, with royalties going to the author, that he can then subvert copyright laws, NOT paying the author for their work in sharing, is OK. Let's look at this. Also consider that it may be the practice that the reader may consider right BUT the legality of the matter. Remember what the topic 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.

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.

Let's see what law.com has to say about copyright protection:

1) n. the exclusive right of the author or creator of a literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not use) and to give it to another by will.

law.com


Note the word "exclusive". What does that mean?

Onelook dictionary defines "exclusive" as:

adjective: not divided or shared with others (Example: "They have exclusive use of the machine")

So copyright is the SOLE property of the author unless s/he gives or sell the product. It is NOT in the purview of a person that obtained the product to reproduce it, in any manner, whether obtained legally or not. This will meet with objection with the digital age folk BUT it doesn't change the fact that the author is SOLE owner of intellectual property until a time that the author sells, or gives, copyright to another.

My opponent seems to agree with me:

Originally posted by chissler
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.

I agree and what "legal manner" would that be? Paying the author for their work? YES, I totally agree. Does "sharing" do that though?

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?

"Who has the right to say otherwise?" Copyright laws.

Once again, from my opponent:

Some of you who read this may be illegally downloading a song as you read this.

Yes, it's prevalent and I'm not judging anyone. The reader may think that there is nothing wrong with this BUT does that make it legal, the crux of this debate? One could say that everyone speeds. What do you think the judge would say if you disputed a ticket on that grounds? "Pay up pally." Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it legal.

I know that this is a "hot topic" and that things have changed in the digital age. Many have NO problem with "sharing". That is not the issue being discussed. Read the positions here, take your personal feelings out of it and see the REAL issue. Remember the topic:

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.

I'm leaving "the wheel" and "guns" out of this as they have no relevance.

Back to you chissler.

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.

Insert a Witty & Insightful Title Here...

My opponent has stated that this wave of technology we have seen in the last seven or eight years is creating a dangerous precedent. This is true. With great power comes great responsibility. The world wide web has allowed the regular Joe Schmoe to accomplish tasks that were never once imagined. But this dangerous precedent is nothing new. If we are to believe that this is something new, then we are only kidding ourselves.

If I buy a book, am I not permitted to share? With the production of cassette tapes, are we to think for a second that people did not make copies? Hell, I'm only a young guy myself but there was nothing better than sitting down and making a good mixed tape. Was there an outcry against this? Yeah, people had their opinions and life went on. My opponent will have you believe that I stand against copyright laws. But that could not be any farther from the truth. If I bust my ass to create a product, then I should be able to earn a few dollars for my efforts. If those few dollars are more like a lot of dollars, then it is only a further credit to myself. I have earned that income and I am entitled to it. I do not dispute this for one second.

But as stated previously, it is not the issue at hand.

If I purchase a book from a local store and share it when I have concluded, am I a criminal? No, I'm not. If I buy a movie and then pass it along when I'm done; am I a criminal? No, I'm not. But we're being told that doing the same thing that we have for years is somehow criminal now that we are sharing it over the internet? Is the individual profiting? No, we're not. If I'm not at a personal gain, how am I at fault? I'm not.

Now since the inception of these all too common P2P File Sharing programs, we have seen a decrease in the sale of music albums. This is a fact. But to solely point the finger at file sharing programs is laughable. Look at the current state of the industry, and I think most would agree that the artists themselves can bare some of the blame for this one. The argument can be made that through file sharing, individuals who create the music are having their material more readily available to the average consumer.

Again, this point requires some emphasis here, this is nothing new.

People have been sharing these products since the moment they were sold. It wasn't a problem then, and it shouldn't be a problem now.

Let's also keep in mind what we are talking about, and what we are not.

I'm not talking about an individual who goes out and rips the hard work of an individual who created a product, and in turn sells this product for a personal gain. That is criminal and it is wrong in every sense. But that's not what we're talking about here. Please do not get confused in the smoke and lights that are being injected into the subject.

Just Ask Yourself This...

If you made it, would you want to use the internet to market the product? The number of people you can reach is catastrophic and with the right approach you can become an overnight celebrity. The internet offers you this, like nothing else before. Why would we possibly cut this means off?

My opponent refers to the little guy who is trying to make it in this business, well so am I. That little guy who busts his ass day in and day out needs this. Rather than driving from store to store, door to door, making pitch after pitch to executive big wigs, these little guys can not try to make their own way by marketing themselves and sharing their files over the internet.

I direct your attention to the following site: Podsafe Music Network

This is a link to a site where artists upload their own music and share it freely. There are no copyright laws and individuals can use it as they wish. Some of the best music I have come across in the last year or two has been on this site. In any of my podcasts that you may have listened to, the music has come from this site. Artists are making a name for themselves by sharing their music online, and trying to get recognized through more unconventional manners.

Why? Because it's necessary. The industry itself has changed so much in the last few decades that you need to be a carbon copy of the last dozen that came before you to make it anywhere. Originality is a lost concept when it comes to the music business. Rather than buying into the "man", why not use the internet to spread your sound and try to make it for who you are, as opposed to who they want you to be.

I've said it in each of my responses thus far, this is an easy one.

With the direction we are heading, why would we ever fathom cutting ourselves off to the world wide web?

Whether some of us like it or not, this is the world we live.

You either adapt, or be forgotten.

Sharing the love

Or

Is it the medium that matters?

2 witty retorts for the price of 1.

My opponent seems to at a loss as to understand my words, and maybe his own.

Originally posted by chisslerIf I buy a book, am I not permitted to share? With the production of cassette tapes, are we to think for a second that people did not make copies? Hell, I'm only a young guy myself but there was nothing better than sitting down and making a good mixed tape. Was there an outcry against this? Yeah, people had their opinions and life went on. My opponent will have you believe that I stand against copyright laws. But that could not be any farther from the truth.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. First off, a book is a tangible item, not a digital file that can be shared with billions once posted online. What is the impact on the author if it is shared with a friend? What is the impact to the author if it is available to billions of would be consumers?

Secondly he notes that there IS a problem even if you are copying material to cassette but that's OK, "life went on." This leads me back to the speeding analogy. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. chissler notes, "Was there an outcry against this? Yeah, people had their opinions and life went on." Hmm, no problem here? Then he says he has no problem with copyright laws.

If I bust my ass to create a product, then I should be able to earn a few dollars for my efforts. If those few dollars are more like a lot of dollars, then it is only a further credit to myself. I have earned that income and I am entitled to it. I do not dispute this for one second.

I'm glad that you note this. Certainly copyright laws are the right of EVERY author out there then. Right?

If I purchase a book from a local store and share it when I have concluded, am I a criminal? No, I'm not. If I buy a movie and then pass it along when I'm done; am I a criminal? No, I'm not. But we're being told that doing the same thing that we have for years is somehow criminal now that we are sharing it over the internet?

YES, that is exactly what I'm saying. The medium is vast and the impact on the artist is IMMENSE. Passing a movie or book(tangible items) when finish is completely different than taking that item and offering it up for free to anyone that clicks on to it. As I said above, BILLIONS of copies can then be made.

You said, "If I bust my ass to create a product, then I should be able to earn a few dollars for my efforts." Now if there's digital copies of your work out there, that's potential billions that you WON'T make from because of the medium. Not fair.

I direct your attention to the following site: Podsafe Music Network

This is a link to a site where artists upload their own music and share it freely.

Thank you for this link. I'm always looking for good music that I can download LEGALLY. Thanks to the authors for sharing it themselves. That IS there right.

Now since the inception of these all too common P2P File Sharing programs, we have seen a decrease in the sale of music albums. This is a fact.

Yes, it IS a fact. Why buy what you can download for free. Then this old chestnut to justify this:

But to solely point the finger at file sharing programs is laughable. Look at the current state of the industry, and I think most would agree that the artists themselves can bare some of the blame for this one. The argument can be made that through file sharing, individuals who create the music are having their material more readily available to the average consumer.

Huh? Why is it laughable? Looks logical to me and would to any "reasonable person." Legal term. You say that the music industry is stale. What makes you think that all the music that's being shared is new and innovative? Crap is being shared too. Mostly would be my guess.

The shoes are polished, the dance floor swept. Are you ready for the final waltz(properly copyrighted of course)?

Back to you chissler.

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.

The paint washes off.

My opponent has painted me as anti-internet, anti-progress, anti-future. This is far from true. The fact that we are engaged in this debate on the WWW proves that the medium IS the way of the future, an exciting one, possibly a dangerous one.

I would like to thank chissler for this exchange. It was thoroughly enjoyable. I appreciate those that took the time to read it. We do this for the intellectual exchange and to entertain those reading. I hope we have done justice for you.

The bottom line 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".

Note: If a person legally owns a copy of a copyright protected file...

That certainly doesn't refer to the author, the author owns his/her material outright, unless those rights are sold or given away. What they do with that material is their own right. This has been my position from the beginning. If the AUTHOR wishes to share their product online GREAT, I would love to sample that work in this legal manner and thanks to the author.

P2P sharing subverts copyright laws and rights of the author. Does someone that "owns" a bought product know what the intent of the author is? Unlikely. If the author wants to share s/he doesn't need P2P, they will share of their own volition.

chissler is right, we are in a new age, the digital age. Does this mean that we don't give the creation of work the value that it is due? Do we put off ownership because it's so easy to do? Would you like your work to be available to anyone without compensation for your effort? I would be outraged to see my words here on another website without permission or attribution.

ATS even has a copyright clause in the T&C:

1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post in a message any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website.

Why? Because intellectual property is covered by copyright, as it should be. The Net can be a wonderful experience, you can share just about anything. All we need to do is allow those that wish to share their material to do so and control those that would subvert the efforts of those that don't.

It IS what the AUTHOR wishes, it is THEIR work. Their effort. It is also their RIGHT under copyright laws. "Sharing is caring?" Only if the author says so.

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