Individuals should be able to legally bypass copyright protection technologies for fair use reasons.
Recent advances in digital media have highlighted inadequacies in intellectual property (IP) laws that were often written long before content was decoupled from physical vessels like books or CDs. An overzealous reaction from industry, coupled with America's litigious culture has demonstrated many of these failings.
We recognize the rights of artists and companies to protect their intellectual property, but it has become clear that the technologies employed to protect copyright are preventing and sometimes punishing legal uses of media for educational, nonprofit, and other purposes which contribute to a positive public discourse.
For the purposes of this debate, we will use the U.S. as a test case, since no body yet exists to act upon the resolution internationally. The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has specific provisions banning the circumvention of copyright protection technologies. We feel that this resolution is most immediately relevant in the context of the U.S., where legal challenges to the DMCA are still in courts.
Fair Use in the United States provides for general usage of copyrighted works for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." [[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html]] Copyright protection technologies will encompass any software that attempts to control access to or prevent the copying of CDs, DVDs, and other media.
Ultimately, side Prop feels that in the case of copy protection, the breaking of the encryption in and of itself should not constitute an illegal act. It is how the content is used that decides the legality of the act. Thus, the proposed plan of the proposition is to amend the DMCA to give legal exemptions to those circumventing copyright protection technologies on various media for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research (Fair Use). Our proposal still allows prosecution for IP theft, piracy or other actions that destroy the value of IP, but returns the right of Fair Use to those people who rightfully deserve it.
Copy Protection and DRM Actively Restrict Important Rights
When the purpose of said actions is simply to make public comment on the music purchased or to critique it or use it for some other academic purpose then the free speech rights of those individuals are being violated, specifically because of the need to use the media to contextualize their opinions or lessons for everyone else. The critical importance of the rights of speech and artistic expression are undeniable. Artistic and cultural expressions are often contextualized and extended through society by sampling and re-imagining (Think of Andy Warhol's study of Campbell's soup cans or the use of music samples in mash-ups). Both cases would likely run afoul of current copyright protection laws as they are currently conceived in the DMCA.
It is very clear that the wealth of media created today can be invaluable for the education of children. The reason is that through multimedia curricula, more information can be conveyed convincingly. This improves the quality of education and empowers students to exercise their own rights to free speech. However, it is prohibitively expensive for a teacher to buy 20-30 copies of a work and often the cost is beyond students' means. Allowing a reasonable number of copies for an educational use promotes these valuable enrichment activities and improves discourse throughout society.
Secondly, you’re connection between the freedom of speech and IP doesn’t exist at all. Right at the moment when you stated that someone CAN make public comment on someone’s copyrighted work, but with the exception of actual using of it (without visualization or similar), you are saying that the opinion can be brought up just with lack of effectiveness. Even if the right of free speech is broken, don’t you break the IP rights? As we know every right can be fulfilled as long as another right isn’t broken? Think a little bit of the other side.
And last, about the example with the students and the teacher, it isn’t relevant at all with the fact that the school and the Ministry of education are responsible to provide them with the required material.
All in all, where’s the motivation and credit for the creator of the work? The IPR are the thing that make someone think of something, put the effort in that and then get what is deserved. They are the starter of any progression in the society. And if someone’s willing to give up from the benefit it could be done and will distribute it to whoever want
Draconian Copy Protection Schemes Cause More Harm Than Good
While this is an extreme example of the harms of copy protection, it is a pattern likely to be repeated. The reason for this is that In order to determine whether or not a user is authorized to make a copy of a given piece of media, a device must determine whether the user has appropriate permission to do so. This requires a program that insinuates itself into the operating system of a machine and, in most cases, periodically updates through the internet. These functions will always present a risk of vulnerability and running these programs invariably consumes computer resources. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, both the vulnerabilities and the loss of resources can be forced upon anyone who wishes to purchase music or other media without any recourse, and even makes it a possible crime to remove the technology from their system.
Our plan secures the legal clarity necessary to ensure that people can remove offending software that protects against copying they never intended to perform in the first place. Furthermore, it sends a message to companies that investing in this sort of draconian technology will prove fruitless.
The Draconian copyright protection system has a crucial role in the protection of different types of IP products such as video games, movies and software. Bigger efforts should be made in the field of copyright protection software, considering the fact that many countries do not have strickt laws for punishing the people who break the IP rights of an individual or a company.
If we find particular dangerous and toxic substances in a bottle of milk produced by a certain company, it does not mean that we should ban any further production of milk, but rather punish the company for their mistake and remember not to make it in the future.
To add insult on injury, this argument is not even connected to the current problem in the status quo. The users who were facing this problem were not even bypassing any laws for fair use reasons, but they rather bought the CD’s from Sony for their own entertainment.
Contrary to what the proposition team said, producing copyright protection is a right held by any individual or company who produces any kind of products, and is a true example of efforts to achieve a better democratic society.
This argument does not change the fact that the individuals should not have the power to legally bypass the copyright protection laws, because it often leads to breaking of the IP rights law, and it also makes a financial damage and demotivation to the authors, which is vulnerable for the general progress of the society.
Clarifies a Blurry Line Regarding the Legality of Fair Use
The plan we propose clarifies the legal status of copy protection and ownership of digital media. The owner of digital media would now know that they can use and make copies of their property without fear of over-zealous prosecution. People do not need to worry whether a comparatively harmless sharing of music among friends might lead to lawsuits seeking thousands of dollars in damages. Regulators and enforcement officers will not see their time taken up by overzealous (but legal) prosecution of small-time file-sharers on behalf of companies that seek to make an example of someone. Side prop's plan still allows major IP violations, like large piracy operations and industrial espionage, to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, we merely draw a clear and more rational line between what is legal and what is not. In doing so, we remove fear from people's lives and encourage full expression of their rights.
In order to keep the copyright work and at the same time encourage the author to keep producing some quality works of art, these laws must be reserved. For example, just like the customer in the supermarket must pays for the products he likes, he also has to pay for the music he listens or the media he uses. He is not allowed by law to make profit from someone else’s work- this is the main fixation that these copyright acts protect.
In our opinion there is no need of a new plan because the existing one works well. In your plan you are missing out a big point and focusing on some meaningless matters. The point on which we should retain is stopping the piracy, not supporting it and spreading it by letting individuals to legally bypass copyrights. Bypassing itself it’s illegal, and just because there is ‘legal’ in front of it, doesn’t justifies it. Your idea is great, but it is just an illusion because you haven’t pointed out who and how your process is going to be monitored. After all there isn’t an existing way of controlling individuals actions and their idea of using the products that they will get. Nobody can guarantee that these products won’t be abused.
That’s why we think that the point on which we should focus is on finding a way to stop piracy, not supporting it and spreading it by letting individuals to bypass copyrights.
Copy Protection Interferes with Individual Property Rights
Protections that fail to stop piracy also further depress demand for copyrighted products. This is because individuals feel strongly over what they feel is theirs; about their property rights. They spend hours making money representative of hard work and more time figuring out how to spend said money. They want something that is theirs and with the limitations stated above people are less inclined to buy. This is especially true with free files on torrents and sites like Limewire. If offered a choice between an unrestricted free service and a restricted pay one, many will choose the former. The lack of respect for property rights makes products less appealing.
What then follows is that if obtaining pirated files has gotten easier then people who buy protected files are already respecting copyrights against immediate self-interest. If that's the case they are less likely to to try and break copyright laws. The technologies are restricting the property rights of the wrong people, people unlikely to break the law. Thus the technology is also inefficient. More importantly it is restricting rights without offering the protection a social contract should.
"Llegally bypass” is just a fancy synonym of the term “piracy”. Piracy is illegal and just putting the word “legally” in front of an illegal action does not make it legal. You say that piracy decreases the demand for copyrighted products and that that makes the products less appealing. Therefore “legally bypassing” the copyrighted protection not fair towards the creators of the mentioned work, not reasonable and illegal. If people choose to use the free service rather than the restricted pay one, they should be punished by the law.
The easy way is not always the right way to do things. We know that it’s easier for people to download songs, movies and other media from torrents and sites like Limewire than buying the media instead, but that doesn’t approve the illegal action they’re doing. Illegal download of copyrighted work discourages the authors of that work to continue creating anything and disables them from making money from their work which is not fair towards their effort put into their creations.
Copy protection does not interfere with Individual property right because it’s a mechanism that prevents the copying of someone’s work and the individual property(e.g. a CD the individual has purchased) by definition[[http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/property.html]] doesn't include the right to copy something that has been copyrighted (e.g. the CD).
Establishes a Clear Brightline in Favor of Data Freedom
On the other side are those who believe that the internet should be focused around the users. This side believes that just because the internet makes personal data-mining, priority access to bandwith and copy protection possible, it does not make it right. We feel that many of the actions perpetuated by the corporate interests on the internet would not be tolerated in real life. We would not allow a company to troll through our garbage to determine what we buy, nor would we allow them to say that a book we bought could not be quoted or only read a particular number of times.
We feel that a decision in favor of the Proposition sets a clear precedent that ownership of something as ephemeral as data does not give the owner complete liberty to determine its disposition. Copyright grants the holder the right to profit, but not control use. Copy protection software directly controls use. We feel that this precedent is a necessary step to stem the tide of advancing corporate interests and helps set the groundwork for a balanced and beneficial future.
We feel that Opposition's stance of "let schools buy access to media" (response to Prop argument 1) really exemplifies this. Schools are struggling for resources already, should they be forced to pay to allow a student to use a brief clip for a presentation?
Another thing is about the rights of the holder. How can you say that copyright doesn’t grant control use, when the holder decides under which terms his/her work will be used and why is this so wrong? And in your whole case you don’t mention how the INDIVIDUALS are controlled whether they use it fair or not. And your “perfect” DMCA says “an exception that permits nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions…” Are those INDIVIDUALS?
Another thing that’s we have to emphasize is that your whole case is built on “common sense” theories that can’t be denied, such as quoting etc. and that as far we all know is allowed and by that you are defending your status quo (not good) and also you didn’t gave us anything new that doesn’t exists. Nevertheless, even if that system works in your society, which is based on “case on case” trials, it doesn’t guaranties that it will work in other kinds of society. Copyrighted works are licensed on territorial basis and some jurisdictions also recognize moral rights of creators, such as the right to be credited for the work.
Just to be clear, Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. As if we don’t have enough piracy so there’s a need to legalize it.
Anticircumvention Laws Stifle The Advancement of Research into Cybersecurity
- A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested at a conference and jailed for creating software that merely had the potential to remove copy protections, but could otherwise be used legitimately and legally.
- GameSpy threatened civil and criminal action against another security researcher for merely posting information on vulnerabilities in their gaming software which encompassed copy-protected games.
Many other cases have been brought forth where researchers asking and presenting data on legitimate security concerns have had lawsuits brought against them to keep them quiet.
Public knowledge of vulnerable software is critical to keeping computer systems across the world safe. It allows users to make informed decisions about their security and allows them time to patch exploitable flaws. In fact, the person who discovered the problems with Sony BMG's software even delayed releasing his findings for fear of litigation from Sony, allowing millions of users to continue unknowningly receiving malicious software[[http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca]].
Malicious trojan horses destroy, steal, or alter data on computer systems across the globe. At present, the provisions of the DMCA that Prop chooses to repeal are directly harming the ability of the programming community to identify and repair exploitable vulnerabilities. The harm caused by these failures of security is too great a price to pay in the name of maximizing control over IP.
We would also like to direct Opp to POIs we raise in the comments.
The proposition should try to look again in the name of the motion and see that it even confirms that the protection technologies exist and should exist, but they should just be bypassed in certain fair use reasons. Therefore, every argument about how these technologies should be abolished make no sense with the resolution. In contrary, they fall silent when they have to prove us why they should be bypassed.
The example with the Russian programmer shows one of many present situations with people who try to attack the IP rights for their own motives. We don’t know the exact motives of the action that he has taken, and as we stated, every single break of the IP right is illegal and gives an example of disorder in society.
The GameSpy example is another repetition from what you stated in your second point, something that is not by any means concerned with the motion (fair use of IP), but just with entertainment content.
The fact itself that this argument does not show an important reason of why bypassing the law is a more efficient way to provide intellectual property, rather than letting the governments to do their own job, and pay the innovators for the works they have done, while enabling the schools with education content speaks in our favor.
Why should we make a burden for the countries by forcing them to make new institutions, when the current system is already functioning. The companies and the individuals are taking care of their property thanks to the law, and the use of the needed content is enabled trough different libraries and databases sponsored by the governments?
We have demonstrated that there are several circumstances where significant social benefit could be gained by allowing copy-protection software to be bypassed for Fair Use. We feel that the cause of art is enhanced by allowing artists free reign to sample, quote and re-imagine existing artwork, with appropriate citation and recognition. We feel that the cause of education can be advanced by allowing students to include elements of media in presentations. Perhaps the greatest benefit is in the area of computer security, where copy protection software can, inadvertently or intentionally, become a vehicle for viruses, trojans or other malicious software. Many examples exist where programmers who had discovered vulnerabilities caused by copy-protection or Digital Rights Management software but could not publicize or fix the flaws due to threats of prosecution for violating copy protection.
Beyond the immediate, tangible benefits, we see this issue as symptomatic of a larger ideological struggle about the future of the internet. Corporate interests behave as if their right to profit is of greater importance than the right of a person to full use of property they have legally paid for. We on side Prop stand firmly on the side of the consumer. We do not dispute an author's exclusive right to profit from their work, however we do not feel that a person's backup copies, a critic's quotation or an artist's mash-up uniquely deny the author profit and Opp has not provided anything beyond assertions as to why it would.
Side Opp appears to have either misunderstood the stance of the proposition or chosen not to engage with it. The overwhelming majority of their argumentation supports the idea that IP protection is a good thing. We on the Prop agree, however side Opp needed to explain how the Fair Use exception to copy protection laws critically undermines IP protection. Pirates can still be sued or prosecuted, digital watermarks can still be included in media and companies can still attempt to prevent their media from being copied. Prop's plan simply says that as far as Fair Use is concerned, the rights of the consumer outweigh the rights of the publisher.
Opp has never articulated a situation in which Fair Use denies an author significant profit. They have not described how copy-protection software uniquely foils pirates; thousands of pirated movies on the web say that it does no such thing. Opp has ultimately shown no significant harm in Prop's advocacy. Without such harm, the clear benefits of our plan call for a Proposition ballot.
IP Rights motivation for creating and developing
Throughout history inventors were inventing and creating with the only goal to profit. It’s in the human nature to lack for fortune and driven by that they are willing to give an effort and spend time on inventing something new. But if that chance is taken away from them, do you think that the further innovations and creations will would still exist? Therefore, we can’t allow any bypassing of the copyright protection technology. IPR are the stimulus and motion for improvements and developments.
Another good side of the IPR is that the creator or the owner of the copyrighted work can decide under which terms his work can be used, so it’s up to him which sum of money will be required or will money be required at all. As far there are no examples of creating something and giving it for free. And this leads us to the conclusion that nobody wants their creation to be used for free. And if that happens, they will be unmotivated for further work.
When speaking of your system, the US system (which is slightly unfair because we don’t know it as well as you), it is capitalistic, a society where the profit is the main priority. In context of the analogy above, people need IPR to make profit and to achieve their main goal. When bypassing THAT right of theirs, you are also bypassing their right to take credit for something that only they are “guilty” for.
As we stated in the rebuttal of your first argument, the fact that the IP rights should be preserved, doesn’t mean that students will be omitted from access to educational content. But clearly, it is not the duty of the creators to work for providing the students with their works, but a duty of the government to provide free libraries and online databases with educational content for research purposes.
More importantly, our advocacy only pertains to disabling copy-protection technology. The remaining arsenal of IP protection techniques is unchanged. It is still illegal to profit from another's work, prosecutors can still charge pirates, courts may still award damages to compensate for stolen work.
IP law that includes a Fair Use clause protect those who own the IP rights a work from significant loss. It does not allow others to profit directly from their work-e.g. the reprinting of a novel for monetary gain, or burning of DVDs to sell on street corners. What it allows is for people to either use the works to spread knowledge or create new intellectual works based off of previous ideas.
Would the Opposition find it unreasonable for a student to quote a text if it was cited correctly? So, how does it differ if instead of writing a paper, the student was putting together a video presentation, where instead of written document it was oral and instead of quotes, they had movie clips? How, in essence, do movie clips differ from written quotes? The media does not define the message, just as breaking copy protection should not define illegality. Current copyright law reflects the reality of a period when content was physically tied to an object. Holding to antiquated notions of copyright helps no one.
Fair use can be misused
But there still isn’t a known mechanism that controls whether someone uses the copyrighted work for fair reasons. With such a big number of internet users, it seems impossible to supervise every single download. If individuals can’t be controlled, that will lead to misuse of the IP rights.
If there is a misuse of the IP rights, there might become some problems in the whole society: First of all, intellectual property provides survival to many individuals in the society, which means, if IP rights are misused, those individuals who educated themselves and put everything in their work just to create something that would be beneficial for them, will not take the credit for their own hard work and they will not have any benefits just because some other individuals misused their IP rights. Also, misusing the IP rights demotivates the creators. If IP rights are misused, the creators will be demotivated and will not continue creating new things, because they will not have the benefits of their work. So when creators stop making new products, there will be no innovations, no new products on the market, non – increasing economy and no progress in the society at all.
To summarise the argument, the opposition thinks that individuals can not be controlled if they use those IP rights for fair use reasons or not, many of them can misuse the IP rights and this would lead to a total mess in the whole society system of any country.
This argument largely repeats their first point and we encourage the judges to refer there for more detail on our response.
If Opp is so concerned about profit, we think it's worth nothing that in many cases, Fair Use can actually increase revenue for IP holders. By allowing sampling for the purposes of art (i.e. mash-ups) and education, a wide range of potential audiences can be reached. Many people choose what books to read or movies to see based on reviews by critics. Allowing sampling improves the impact of these critical reviews and can drive demand. Students who read a passage in class may go seek out the full text. Clips shown in class may lead to students wanting to see more of a movie on their own time, driving them to purchase it. Artists also gain in prestige, pride and recognition when their art is more widely disseminated.
As to their last paragraph, if governments acted in fear to policies being misused, then we would have no policies, we would live in a world of fear. Opp's burden is to show that the negative consequences of our plan are more likely and more impactful than the positive ones.In this, they have failed. They have failed to demonstrate how the harms of allowing Fair Use copies outweigh the good
The Berne Convention
The Fair use law is a small part in American Copyright law that should and according to it provides an exceptions for institutions ( such as schools) to use copyrighted works as a fair use.
Firstly this debate is about whether INDIVIDUALS should have the right to bypass copyrights, this means that your previous arguments are illogical and not connected to the subject. Schools are institutions that are supported by their Ministries of education whose work is to provide the schools with money to purchase these CDs,DVDs etc. for the students’ education. This leads that the existence of Fair Use is not necessary.
Secondly we are debating on a wider subject that includes not just bypassing the technology for media and school purposes but for other, for example medical researches, economical uses and greater and more complex uses of the copyrighted works. There isn’t a system that can control individuals intentions throughout the whole world who bypass the copyright laws- it can be easily abused and used for personal benefits ( that is illegal and banned with all existing copyright laws).
And thirdly and most important is that there is a Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which includes almost every country in the world including the USA. Even though USA had difficulties in accepting this law, after all agreed to it.
There is an exception in this Convention but is far more restrictive than Fair Use because includes all aspects of using the copyrighted works.(Fair dealing). The existence of Fair Use is contradictory to the Fair dealing, and if you want to speak for American laws, Fair Dealing is one of them that forbids many of the exceptions that Fair Use allow.
1) Has codified Fair Use doctrine; AND
2) Has laws against bypassing copy protection for Fair Use purposes.
These facts make the U.S. a good model for future, global policy.
This is the legal contradiction our plan is meant to alter. It is already law in the European Union that copyright protection technologies be bypassable for certain Fair Uses[[http://bit.ly/av5eK7]] (Article 6, Section 4).
In regards to individuals, side prop has only referred to individuals. When discussing school, we were speaking of actions by individual teachers on behalf of their students. These actions are recognized as legal usage of copyrighted material. Current law makes it a crime when the teacher break copyright protection to do this. The US and State Departments of Education do not provide everything to classrooms, and many teachers choose to go above and beyond. This should be encouraged, not dismissed as governmental responsibility.
In regards to the misuse of the system. Side prop has already explained that stopping Piracy is a fool's endeavor, as copy protection has never successfully stopped a pirate. The DMCA contains provisions that allow for the litigation of infringements. Furthermore, our case serves as a clarification of what IS and IS NOT piracy and/or infringement.
As for the Berne Convention, side prop would encourage side opp to read the items they cite, as the last Berne Convention amendment was in 1979 and so does not define Fair Use for digital media. Furthermore, it delegates the definitions of Fair Use for most media to the legislative bodies of each individual signatory [[http://bit.ly/9asK06]]. 'Fair Dealing' is a different doctrine adopted by countries based in UK Common Law.
No reasons for changes in the Status Quo
This was explained throughout our second point, where we stated how the provision of the bypass can be misused, especially because you are not talking about individuals who are in need of the IP products for fair use reasons, but rather bigger institutions like schools and universities. If we are not tracking the use of this products on individual level, than the criterion for selecting which users can access these products can be easily misused for bad reasons.
Currently, the tendencies of every well-developed country, are not only defending the private property rights, but they are focusing even more on the IP rights, which do not differ much from the private property rights. This means that the law in these countries allows every company or individual to distribute their own copyright technologies. Even if some of their software is vulnerable to hackers and programmers, it is the duty of the company to develop a secure software for their products, and results show that there are already software protections on games, movies, music and other media which have proven to be sufficient enough.
EU will be making even more strict laws for the breaking this right, so we can see how the developed world is thinking that even the fair-use of IP is not allowed, because they are aware that it is the duty of the governments to fund the education and the other sectors with the needed content of IP, not the authors of the products, who are making for their own profit, and may stop, in case they are forced to work for others.
Bypassing copyright protection technologies is nothing new. In fact, copy protection schemes seldom work, and often music, games and movies are pirated and become available even before official release dates[[http://bit.ly/5aFKHd]].
The individual tracking of these products is also nothing new. Copyright protection technologies such as SecuROM[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM]] make use of the unique positioning of the data on each CD to verify that it is the original. This has even proven easy to bypass, as the game Spore utilized this technology and has been downloaded illegally almost 2 million times. What this shows is that the pirates will never be defeated technologically, and no digital media that can be read will ever be secure from copying. The only solution to piracy is aggressive litigation and prosecution of pirates. Prop's plan does nothing to impede this.
As mentioned in two of side prop's points, these copy protection technologies pose a significant security risk. This point has been well developed and never adequately responded to. Side opp's only argument is that copyright holders have a 'right' to do this. Side prop believes that copyright holders should never be allowed to subvert their customers' computers to serve their own interests, nor should they be able to threaten legal actions against those who remove this software to secure their system.
Furthermore, as we have mentioned throughout, our case does not do anything to prevent the prosecution of people who bypass copyright protections for malicious purposes, we merely make it legal for individuals to bypass copy protection if they are conforming to Fair Use standards.
The tightening of laws by the EU through measures such as the Anticounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has nothing to do with public opposition to Fair Use and everything to do with corporate lobbying.
Even if we agreed on the importance of this problem, we clearly said that just because we can find two or three examples of a lame protection code, it doesn’t mean that the method of Draconian copy protection should be stopped, since we mentioned many times during the debate that it is one of the most important measures that the companies can take in order to secure their media internationally (because of some not so strict laws in other countries). They didn’t even use examples relevant to the motion (fair use reasons), but mostly examples of companies who make products for entertainment purposes (SONY, GameSpy).
Secondly, they mentioned that by not having the chance to visualize their critics and presentations, the people were omitted from enjoying the freedom of speech. But here, we clearly stated that just because the presentation can be improved by this method, doesn’t mean that it justifies the breaking of another right, someone’s IP. And we all know that we can all enjoy our rights as long as we don’t break the rights of others.
Our point of motivation was also relevant to the debate, since implementing their plan may leave bad consequences for the society. The people who work by producing media content for educational purposes are not the ones who have responsibilities to work for the students instead of the governments, which are the ones who have duties to preserve the education. They tried to defend by giving us historic examples, and they clearly didn’t notice that the society is changing and the personal capital is the most important thing that drives the innovations.
We also talked about the fact that the process of monitoring will be nearly impossible, since they were not talking about specific individuals, but rather about institutions, in which the criterion for which ones can bypass the laws can be easily misused.
We would like to close this debate by saying that we strongly support the Status Quo. The first reason for defending it was because it’s the governments job to provide the citizens with the needed IP content. Team USA mentioned that the plan will be using only the sample from their country, and we are assuming that they think it can be implemented in other countries. There are different societies in which this plan would fail because the breaking of IP rights is not considered a crime, so the companies have to defend by using their own copyright technologies.
If we want to achieve a society with motivated minds and new creations, we beg the judges to oppose the plan.
We thank team USA for t