The Instigator
darhblader
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Bluebarbie
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Ownership of content without cause for loss financially is not a right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
darhblader
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 36663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

darhblader

Pro

Given the difficult to express this idea in abstraction, I shall give a few examples.

A person owns the rights to a book they have written. They will not gain any money from it being sold and they have shared it freely but only to whom they wanted. A person then shares this book with others without consent of the owner.

The owner is not at a loss financially as the person has no intention of selling it.
The owner is not at a loss of reputation as it is a work they have already shared. The reputation of the owner can lead directly or indirectly to financial gains or losses.
The sharer is not gaining financially as they are sharing it freely

The creator is not at a loss and should not dictate the sharing of their work.

Second example

A large record label have produced a cd. They sell it freely.

Someone makes a copy and distributes it freely.
The people who get the cd freely have no intention of buying the cd and only listen to it because it is free.

The label is not at a loss financially as there was never any intention of the copier to buy it.
The label is not at a loss of reputation as it is already distributing the cd to anyone who will buy it. equally the people who would never buy it can still listen and perhaps change their minds about the label and buy their future work leading to future profit that would otherwise never have existed.

These examples adhere to a strict policy of no loss in profit from the "pirate". The first example were money is taken entirely out of the equation and the second example taking potential profit out of the argument.

This leads to the argument that if profit and reputation (which can be thought of as a different branch of the same tree) is not considered, copyright of any property is null and only serves to hinder creativity and development.

This argument has parallels to the argument for/against piracy in the music industry but focuses not on loss in profit but on the concept of ownership and how it translates to property that can be copied without loss to the owner.
Bluebarbie

Con

i dont know
Debate Round No. 1
darhblader

Pro

darhblader forfeited this round.
Bluebarbie

Con

Bluebarbie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
darhblader

Pro

darhblader forfeited this round.
Bluebarbie

Con

Bluebarbie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
darhbladerBluebarbieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF on both, but worst R1 rebuttal ever!