The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

For this debate, I would like to take the argument that pirating copyrighted materials (music, movies, software, etc.) online should be legal in the U.S., and that the act of pirating materials should not lead to any form of legal punishment.

For reference let us define the following:
Pirating - to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright [1]
Copyright - the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work) [2].

When a person purchases a product, such as a car, or a computer, that person has the right to do what they want with that product - it is theirs to own. If the owner wishes, they may paint their car, or upgrade their computer. And if they are generous, the owner may also share their car with a friend, or share their computer with others. The owner that purchased the object may share it with those who did not purchase it.

The same idea should apply to pirating copyrighted software. If, for example, a person purchases a CD, they have the right to share it with friends; they can lend it to their parents, or even give it as a gift to a spouse. They purchased the CD, and have the right to do what they want with it, it is theirs. Therefore, because it is their property, it should be legal for the owner of the CD to share it online with others by whatever means they choose (i.e.. torrenting). This is called pirating because they are reproducing the CD. This act is currently illegal, and can lead to jail time, and or fines from organizations such as the RIAA. However, because the CD was purchased by the owner, they should have the right to share it with peers online, just like they share it with peers in real-life. The owner can take that same CD, put it on iTunes, and burn another copy, with no legal repercussions.

In conclusion, the act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal because the product belongs to the owner, and the owner may share the product freely with those in real life, and therefore should be able to do the same online, so long as that the owner does not make a profit off of the sharing of the product.

I look forward to this debate. Thank you.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I would like to take a moment to thank Kinger for issuing this challenge, which I gladly accept.

I, too, have been struck by these hard financial times. It can be very expensive to buy music, especially if you, like me, prefer to have a hard copy of the album rather than buying digitally from sites such as iTunes. If you pay full price for a CD, you can pay upwards of $17, or more for boxed sets or other special packaging. It can be expensive. However, just like with any other medium, you must ask yourself: Which is the proper way to go about it in these hard times, abstaining from purchasing as much music as you’d like or outright stealing it? As it is wrong to steal food or clothes when you’re hit financially, it is just as wrong to steal music.

I will take Pro’s own definition of copyright: “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)” (emphases mine). The answer is found within the definition itself. The two words I would like to bring to your attention are reproduce and distribute. While it is perfectly legal for you to rip music to your computer’s hard drive or burn CD’s to archive in case the original is damaged or destroyed, it is not legal for you to reproduce it or distribute it. This includes giving it to your friends for free or using them on file sharing sites.

Additionally, it is also legal to give a CD you own to another friend, provided you don’t retain any other copies of that music (such as a burnt CD or ripped to your hard drive). Just like in the analogy of the car, that CD is yours to do with as you please. However, you cannot copy any of the music from that CD if you intend to get rid of it.

Internet piracy also reduces album sales [1]. This is why Napster was taken to court in 2003. By sharing files that were meant to be purchased, you are essentially stealing product.

Again, I thank Pro for the debate opportunity and look forward to his response.

[1] http://www.serci.org...

I would like to thank my opponent for taking on this debate, and wish them the best of luck!

I would first like to point out that in the digital age, music artists are making more money than ever [1], thus music artists should have little to complain about. Revenue from digital sales have been on the decline and incline for a while, but overall total revenue has been rising.

I would also like to point out that piracy has the ability to raise sales. One example is when comic book writer Steve Lieber's comic was put into PDF form and bootlegged on 4chan. Shortly after the bootlegging, his comic sales dramatically increased [2].

It is true, I can not legally copy a CD and give it to friends (I do believe I messed up in my original statement, and for that I apologize). However, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. The founding fathers of the United States meeting secretly to discuss a revolution was illegal. It was illegal for African Americans to vote.

Pirating is also not equivalent to theft. When I steal something, it can not be returned to the owner, and value is lost. However, if I copy something, then no value is lost. For example, if I steal a car from you, then your car is gone, you have lost it. But if I use some sort of copy-machine on your car, and you keep your original car, then you lose nothing.

It is because Internet piracy does little actual financial harm, and because it is in fact not theft, rather just copying, that this action should be legal, not illegal.

I thank my opponent again for taking this debate, and await their response!

[1]http://torrentfreak.com...
[2]http://www.teleread.com...

Thank you, again, to my opponent and best of luck, as well.

It is true that revenue has increased since the invention of digital media, but this can be accounted for by at least two things: First, with the invention of a new way to purchase things, that’s going to naturally increase revenue rather than just having one method of purchasing product. Second, buying on-line is easier and cheaper (usually $1 per song, and $10 per album, as opposed to buying from the store which, unless it’s on sale, can run you about $18). However, this does not excuse breaking the law to get product for free. You might as well say bank robbery should be legal because banks pull in much more revenue than a gas station.

I would now like to respond to Pro’s second argument. He said, “I would also like to point out that piracy has the ability to raise sales. One example is when comic book writer Steve Lieber's comic was put into PDF form and bootlegged on 4chan. Shortly after the bootlegging, his comic sales dramatically increased.” Piracy may have the ability to raise sales, but it also has the ability to lower sales. Comic books are much cheaper than CD’s (comic books, as far as I know, typically run anywhere from $1 to $5, as opposed to digital albums ($10) and physical albums ($18)). Apart from that, if someone pirates music, they may realize they don’t like the album and decide not to purchase it. Or, since music has the propensity to be pretty costly, they may have to be very impressed by the music before they purchase it, whereas it may be good enough that they would purchase it if it were offered cheaper.

Regarding Pro’s third argument, I don’t believe the American Revolution and slavery are applicable analogies. It is true that what is legal is not always right and vice versa, however, the American Revolution and the end of slavery were about human rights. It was wrong to make Africans (and the other nationalities) slaves, and the American Revolution was begun to escape the tyranny of the British monarchy. It is not a basic human right to steal. Especially living in the United States (forgive me if you live outside the country), we live in a capitalist country. Many bands give away their music for free, but if a band tries to make a living with it and sells their music for product, they are perfectly within their right to do so, and you are not within your right to take it without paying for it.

Pirating is equivalent to theft. If you steal something from a store, provided you get away with it, you receive product for free and neither the store, nor the artists/producer responsible for creating the product, get paid. If you pirate music, you are taking music for free and neither a potential store where you would have purchased the music from nor the artist/producer responsible for creating the product, will get paid. Additionally, if you steal something from me, I can still get it back if you have a change of heart. It can still be returned to me, so the analogy fails in that respect, as well.

Not only is internet piracy against the law because it violates copyright (you cannot reproduce or distribute the music without permission or paying royalties), but it is the equivalent to stealing. Therefore, internet piracy should remain illegal and no one should be surprised if music companies or artists demand legal recompense for someone who commits the act.

I would like to first point out that I would not say pirating music is like saying I should rob a bank; when you rob a bank you are putting people in danger, and usually more often than not, making people fear for their lives, while in pirating you are doing no such thing.

On the argument of pirating on raising and lowering sales, I would like to share one quote: There's no such thing as bad publicity. If I pirate the music of an artist, and I like them, the chances rise of me seeing them in concert or purchasing apparel (two things that can NOT be pirated). Now If I pirate the music of an artist and I do not like them, then I will surely feel satisfied that I did not waste my money, and can spend it elsewhere, perhaps on another artist. So pirating the music is like a preview of what I get. If the preview goes well, I get the actual thing. If it doesn't go well, I move on.

While my specif anologies of the American Revolution and slavery may have not been acceptable in the eyes of my opponent, the idea still stands; just because it's illegal does not make it wrong. Laws are meant to be challanged to be changed. Now as my opponent stated, some bands give away their music free, and usually this can cause a generous amount of good publicity for them, and lead to an increase in profit in non-piratable materials and services (shirts, concerts, posters, etc.). These non-pirateable materials will always be a source of revenue for bands as they can not be pirated. Now, if the band does not give away their music, they will still make money in the sales of the previous things mentioned.

I would like to make the argument once more that piracy is not equivalent to theft. If I steal something, again, the value is lost, and the producer has to make another copy as the product can not be returned; however when you make a copy of something no direct value is lost. The producer doesn't have to make more of the product to replace what is stolen. Prices of general goods are inflated because of shoplifting for example, because the producer has to reproduce what was taken so it can be resold. However, you do not see song prices on the inter (such as on iTunes) rising because there is no real physical product being stolen; only something being copied.

I thank my opponent for a good argument. Vote pro.

Seeing as though this is our last round, I will not present any new evidence since the Instigator will not be able to respond. I will simply rebut a few of his points here.

"...I would not say pirating music is like saying I should rob a bank..."

I didn't say it's as if you should, I was comparing the two. Saying pirating music is acceptable because now artists and everyone involved makes more money due to an additional medium to purchase music is like saying it should be acceptable to rob banks because they make more money than gas stations.

"So pirating the music is like a preview of what I get."

An illegal preview. If an artist previews their music on MySpace or another site, that's fine. Preview it. However, pirating music is illegal and if the artist doesn't want you to preview the music before you buy it, you have no right to. After all, that's what singles on the radio are for, to give you a taste of what's actually on the album.

"While my specif [sic] analogies of the American Revolution and slavery may not have been acceptable in the eyes of my opponent, the idea still stands..."

It's not just unacceptable in my eyes, it's unacceptable, period. Stealing (pirating) is not a human right. Living free is. That's what the end of slavery and the American Revolution were about.

"These non-pirateable materials will always be a source of revenue for bands as they can not be pirated."

Oh no? People sneak into concerts. That has the same effect as pirating music. T-shirts and other memorabilia can be stolen. That has the same effect as pirating music.

"I would like to make the argument once more that piracy is not equivalent to theft."

I have already shown that it is.

"Prices of general goods are inflated because of shoplifting for example, because the producer has to reproduce what was taken so it can be resold."

Yet the Instigator did not provide a link to back this up. I don't think this is true. Prices rise due to inflation because of supply and demand. I've never known any prices to inflate due to theft.

Again, I thank the Instigator for this argument, and you, the reader, for carefully considering the evidence and logic supplied here. I don't have to tell you how to vote.