Copyright laws are antithetical to the principle of free expression.

To begin my closing statements, I think I will reiterate the topic of discussion. That being "Copyright laws are antithetical to the principle of free expression." I though this would make an important inclusion, since it appears that my opponent has forgotten this. It was stated as such in the very name of the debate, yet my opponent has insisted on trying to make this into a case for the societal good of copyright. I do not dispute that copyright is an important thing for society, and I have not done so in any of my responses. What I have maintained is that the idea is antithetical to the principle of free expression. The issue of copyright and free expression being contradictory to one another is quite separate from the question of "is copyright a good thing?" My opponent has not even touched on the crux of the issue at hand--that issue being the *inherent* contradiction between free expression and a restriction on expression. Free expression is not simply about being able to express your own ideas, nor about being free to express other ideas in a unique manner. It is about being able to express *anything* you want to, with no restrictions whatsoever. Anything that places restrictions on how one may express any idea, even if it does not infringe on the right to original expression, is antithetical to the *principle* of free expression. My opponent has all but agreed with this concept with their affirmative defense of copyright as a sort of necessary evil. There is no necessary "balancing act" involved, if copyright and free expression were not contradictory. If these two principles were complementary, as my opponent has asserted, then benefiting either of them would help the other, and no counter force would be needed. This does not seem like a reasonable conclusion to draw, since the *principle* of free expression is clearly diminished by the act of violating it. Indeed, copyright may benefit expression as a whole, but it does so by creating a class of "proprietary expression" that is not free. Certainly, there are pragmatic benefits to the adoption of copyright--a conclusion that I have not disagreed with, nor do I deny. I do, however, maintain that it is a violation of the ethical principle of free expression. There are many expedient measures that may be beneficial to society, yet are ethically bankrupt. An example of this might be slavery. This system of labor is quite beneficial for those who own slaves, and those who exist in a society made possible by the practice, but it is clearly a violation of human rights. Mandatory government surveillance can also provide a great benefit to society--it can result in less crime, and safer streets. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, both of these practices make a great deal of sense. However, both violate ethical principles that today's western society claims to hold dear. This is also true of copyright, in relation to the ethical principle underlying free expression. Copyright, no matter how pragmatic and expedient the idea is, is still a fundamental violation of the *principle* of free expression. What is necessary may well be different from what is right, and as a society we should knowingly decide which goal we prefer. My opponent, however, has steadfastly ignored this crucial issue, and has done their best to devolve this into a legalistic debate about the constitutionality of copyright. I do not dispute that copyright is legal under the current interpretation of free expression as the courts have traditionally held it. Of course, slavery was also constitutional before the US Civil War--we even condoned its existence in the text of the Constitution, by allowing the "3/5ths compromise". The issue of copyright really isn't very different from that particular issue--both involve ownership rights of individuals, allowing them to own some aspect of another person (Copyright, their expressions, and slavery, their body). I hope those voting will remember that. Laws, and prevailing legal interpretations, are not always held to the proper ethical standards. Neither does the prevailing legal interpretation remain static. New courts can hold differing opinions on constitutional issues from one decade to the next, based, in part, on changing public perceptions. Debates like this one are intended to challenge the prevailing view on the constitutionality of copyright by challenging it on principle, not on legal history. This is not, and has not, been a referendum on the necessity of copyright. This is, and always has been, a discussion about the contradiction between copyright and free expression. The issue of constitutionality was brought forward as an attempt to prompt further debate once the violation of free expression by copyright had been demonstrated. Unfortunately, the debate that was intended did not occur, as my opponent largely ignored the matter of principles, and least first to a legal defense of the constitutionality of copyright. I hope those voting will remember that as well.