The Instigator
holla1755
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There Should Be No Copyrights, No Patents, and No Trademarks

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 103919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

holla1755

Pro

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks limit people's creativity. They constrain the virtuous principals of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They prohibit people and society from reaching their full potential. They are artificial and unnatural. Perhaps most importantly, they are unnecessary.
ViceRegent

Con

So do other forms of theft, a fool who buys your understanding of these things could argue. What is your point?
Debate Round No. 1
holla1755

Pro

My point is that no copyrights, no patents, and no trademarks should exist.

Copyright, patent, and trademark infringement are not forms of theft. Forms of expression, processes, and pictorial logos are not exclusive to only one person or organization. They exist as abstract ideas, similar to geometric points, lines, and planes. They can exist anywhere and in any person's mind. It is therefore not right to assign them to only one person or organization.

Copyright, patent, and trademark infringement are not like stealing some material objects such as a vase. A vase is exclusive in the sense that it has unique properties such as location and time of existence. For that reason, the vase can not be copied exactly. People may have different ideas of what should be done with the vase, and so it makes sense, and is necessary, to assign the vase's destiny to only one person or organization. Some words, processes, and pictures, however, have limited properties and thus can be copied exactly.
ViceRegent

Con

Yes, the fruit of my intellect is my property. IP law protects that property. To take the fruit of my intellect without my consent is theft, plain and simple. Justify your desire to make theft legally ok?
Debate Round No. 2
holla1755

Pro

The fruit of your intellect may be your property, but it shouldn't be your property. IP law may protect that property, but IP law shouldn't exist.

Taking the fruit of your intellect without your consent is a vague concept I am skeptical of. It is not well defined. Copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent is one thing; taking it without your consent is another. While taking the fruit of your intellect without your consent may be theft, copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent is not theft. Therefore, copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent should not be legally considered as theft.
ViceRegent

Con

Right, being an atheist, it does not surprise me that you deny property rights. Commies are atheists, after all. But the fact remains that I have a right to the fruit of my intellect, no matter how much your envious and greedy hands may say otherwise. Until you can prove I have to no right to the fruit of my intellect, you lose the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Masterful 4 months ago
Masterful
If a company makes a T.V series call "Game of thrones" and another company comes along and makes another T.V called "Game of Thrones" Then it's clear the latter company is trying to make money from the success of the former.

Copy rights are mostly important within the entertainment industry. However they serve uses everywhere within modern society, where they protect companies from fraudsters and mimic companies that only have the interest of quick cash in mind. This also means that copy rights protect consumers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.