The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Lars Ulrich vs. Napster

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Vi_Veri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,852 times Debate No: 9359
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Charlie_Danger

Con

For this debate, the Pro endorces "Metallica" drummer Lars Ulrich's stance in the US lawsuit against Hank Berry, Shawn Fanning and the Napster community.

I, as Con, do not. I am free to endorse the status quo (at the time) or a counter-plan (in this case, counter-law-suit) against Lars Ulrich, who the Pro represents.

At the time of this debate, we are to assume that all results of said lawsuit are nonexistant, as are any other relevant items that branched from Napster or the suit today. Limewire does not exist. BitTorrent does not exist. Et cetera.

I don't want to bind this debate up with stupid rules or definitions, just PLEASE be logical and avoid the semantical argumentation. NOTE THIS NOW: IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING SEMANTICAL EXTRA-TOPICAL ARGUMENTS, DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE, OR YOU WILL TO FORFEIT IN-ROUND.
Basically, use common sense. I want to have fun as well as give the DDO community a good show.

Though this might not be an LD debate, I allow the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC.
Vi_Veri

Pro

This is my post to allow the debate to continue. As for LD debate constructs: I have no clue what any LD debate rules consist of (I'm not a debate team person), but I will argue this like any average debate (or philosophical/law related argument). Good luck, and let us get started.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Con

I thank Vi for accepting this debate and wish her the best of luck.

I could technically leave the rest of this page blank without any risk of forfeit. I specifically stated in the opening argument that I want "the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC" Already note this key voter issue: my opponent's ignorance of the rules.

Nevertheless, I will post a couple of brief contention taglines in order to spur my opponent, but first I must highlight the burdens in the round.

Affirmative burden: To support Lars Ulrich in the lawsuit, and show why he should have won, all while rebuking the negative constructive arguments should there be any

Negative burden: To show that Lars Ulrich should not emerge victorious above Hank Berry, Shawn Fanning and the Napster community

Negative Contentions:
1) Napster is the current future of music
2) Napster helps local, underground, and aspiring musicians
3) Napster does not hurt big music-makers like "Metallica"
4) Napster is a tame route to follow

Again, I will not expand on these until after Vi finally posts her Affirmative arguments. I guessed that the issue she had was not knowing what I intended to argue, so there it is. I will (again) await the Affirmative Constructive, and will follow by attacking it and presenting more in-depth analysis on the four contentions listed above.

Best of luck, Vi, and thanks again for the debate.
Vi_Veri

Pro

My opponent stated, ""the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC"

I'd like to inform my opponent that it is difficult to create a negative construct when not presented with constructs to negate. Let the voters know that I was not given any constructs to work off of for this debate as it was presented by the instigator (CON). But, none the less, I will attempt to present a negation thanks to my opponent finally offering positive contentions for me to work with (to have something to negate).

Now let us begin…

Official quote from Metallica about Napster, "[they] encourages piracy by enabling and allowing users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers."

Napster is an online music file sharing service created by Shawn Fanning. It helps users share music and bypass established copyright laws that those files possess. I will be defending the musical group Metallica and their right to their own intellectual property from the piracy of Napster.

In 2000, Metallica gave Napster an ultimatum to remove their property from the system or they would sue, and Napster responded that it could not remove illegal copies of the band's music or help stop the illegal distributions that its users were making unless Metallica could provide proof of specific violations. Transferring of Metallica's music, however, was done without the band's permission, and the band is not receiving any compensation for lost sales. This blatantly violates copyright laws.

Napster is distributing software that's purpose is to permit Napster to profit by encouraging pirating of intellectual property of musical artists. Universities who are allowing Napster to facilitate this illegal activity are also looters in the act, never so much as blocking ILLEGAL pirating on their computers and helping engage in thievery. Napster is aware of its use: "It claims to have the world's largest MP music library available to its users and has virtually guaranteed its users access to any music they want." (http://www.virtualrecordings.com...)

Napster's motives are for profit. Due to the large popularity of its site, Napster makes handsome amounts of money from advertisers and from referrals to other websites. Napster has also publicly announced that they are hiring "talented people to bring the latest and greatest music technology to the web." (NAPSTER) Napster is trafficking property while very conscious of what its users are doing with its software. Napster has knowingly not intervened and blocked the piracy going on through its servers, and has not taken any action to protect the artists' property. Through this conduct herein, Napster shall be sued for materially contributing and encouragement of piracy.

So, to state specific violations for Napster…

Quite simply, Napster has violated three different areas of law: copyright infringements, unlawful use of digital audio interface device, and the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS:

The US copyright laws protect reproduction, distribution, performance, display, license, and the preparation of derivative works for an author. "The Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings." (http://topics.law.cornell.edu...)

UNLAWFUL USE OF DIGITAL AUDIO INTERFACE DEVICE

"A "digital audio interface device" is any machine or device that is designed specifically to communicate digital audio information and related interface data to a digital audio recording device through a nonprofessional interface." -- 17 U.S.C. section 1001(2) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...)

This violates the prohibition, importation, manufacture and distribution in 17 U.S.C. section 1001. This is a direct violation of 17 U.S.C. section 1001, and my plaintiff is entitled to the damages caused by such an illegal use.

RACKETEERING INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO)

RICO was instated to stop ongoing organized crime. Napster qualifies as organized crime as it is a centralized enterprise run for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity (PIRACY) for profit. Stolen property has been transferred interstate through the use of Napster (violating 18 U.S.C. section 2314). The value of the stolen property exceeds $5,000. The defendants have conducted their affairs through racketeering activity.

To conclude my complaint, I will address the negative contentions.

"Negative Contentions:
1) Napster is the current future of music
2) Napster helps local, underground, and aspiring musicians
3) Napster does not hurt big music-makers like "Metallica"
4) Napster is a tame route to follow"

1) Napster is the demise of profits for musical artists and will not aid in the future of these musicians. It distributes works without permission and hinders profits which hurts the bands substantially. There is no future in corruption.

2) These musicians could give permission to Napster to distribute their works, and that would be perfectly fine. This is not at all, though, what it is doing to my plaintiff, Metallica. Metallica was never asked for permission for distribution. Napster distribution of underground work illegally also substantially hinders bands as they are receiving no profits from their works.

3) Napster steals profits from Metallica. It violates their copy rights, and traffics their property interstate.

4) Murder is tame to brutal murder, but it is still a crime. A violation is a violation. Piracy is piracy. And Napster is on a huge scale. Napster has claimed 15 million users in little more than a year. This is, by no means, "tame."

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Pro

My opponent forfeited his last round. Just adding a bit of text to show I am being diligent. I hope to hear from him in the last round.
Debate Round No. 3
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Pro

I guess this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
Charlie was raped of his logic.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I'm giving all points to Vi.

I messed up.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
It's alright, happens. Good luck next round, Charlie.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Gaddamit

I'm sorry, Vi. I kinda passed out after a long and bothersome day at school, driving to the doctor, only to find that someone misappointed me to a different clinic, making my long-@ss drive useless. I just now woke up, apparently two hours late to post.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Though this might not be an LD debate, I allow the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC."

It says allow, implying it's optional does it not?
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
SAC8:
Dude. Change does not equal Hypocricy. I hate it when people cry "hypocrite" without thought. Why is any information from another debate, on another topic, at another time relevant? Oh! IT ISN'T. Imagine a person gets arrested for illegally downloading music. You would be the guy who calls him a hypocrite when he decides not to illegally download music anymore.

And if the Instigator should always make the case, then why does DDO allow otherwise? Why accept the debate if you don't want to present the case? If anyone needs to stop crying, it should be you. If you have an issue with my debate, nobody is forcing you to comment or accept it.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
"Already note this key voter issue: my opponent's ignorance of the rules."

Really, Charlie? How about your rap video battle debate? Your own rules were created to make sure the video was at least two minutes long, and yours was not. Why don't you stop being hyprocital of others when you have just as much to be ashamed of. By the way, the Instigator really should make the case. Stop being a baby.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
I suspect the instigator should always begin... or it's a cop out.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Be flexible.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
"I allow the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC."

Uhm, I kinda don't have an NC, so I was waiting for your opening arguments, Vi.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Charlie_DangerVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Charlie_DangerVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Charlie_DangerVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07