This House Would Recognize 'The Pirate Bay' As Wrongly Convicted.

In case you have not heard the news; http://www.nytimes.com... Today we find ourselves at a crossroads, both marred by fog, spooky trees and werewolves and whatnot. One road involves criminalizing file sharing and persecuting everybody who participates in it, leading to never ending witch hunt. The other path would be that of legalization. It would be a path in which we work with the entertainment industry to find a new way in which they may remain competitive and lucrative while at the same time allowing the world to torrent whatever they please so long as it remains in the confines of all other (non-copyright) laws. Today I will present three iron-clad arguments as to why this house should encourage Sweden to not only release the four jailed for their involvement with The Pirate Bay, but also to decriminalizing the act of seeding torrents. My first point is that of legality in the sense that the court in question had no right to impose such a sentence on the four men. A fundamental cog in our democratic machine is that of an open, fair judicial system that is reliant on many things, two of which are that a court may not create or change law, only interpret it and that a court must prove intent. The court has failed in both these regards. Though the eyes of the original law, one who creates a system through which *any* files may be shared cannot be responsible for those files who infringe on copyright. The court took it upon itself to expand the law to encompass the enablers, despite a clear and evident lack of intent. The court has effectively made the enabler the guilty party. The court has set a precedent in which the one who manufactures the gun is guilty for any crime committed with it. This is, of course, an insane idea and I see no reason why it should be allowed. Secondly, I would argue that to fight file sharing is the equivalent of fighting the tides. 95% of music downloads are pirated. For the judicial system to think it may remove the vast majority of a market for anything is ludicrous. There are dozens, if not hundreds of file sharing websites and programs. Any effort to destroy all of this will be a ghastly waste of tax payers money, will only strengthen the resolves of file sharers and will destroy countless lives. If the government genuinely wanted to solve the issue, why not cover some costs to the entertainment industry itself, rather than pay for these show trials. Or, more reasonably, the government could impose a small tax on internet plans and use the money to subsidize the industry. Third, and most importantly, I would argue that is a time for an evolution in the entertainment industry. The people cannot be responsible if they have unequivocally failed in remaining competitive, progressive and cost-effective in this industry. They simply miss the days of their oligopoly and demand that governments legislate their control of the market. I would argue that in this era of globalization and web 2.0, it is nonsensical to hand over control of an industry to those who cannot cope with the evolution of technology. This is a mirror of the government's fight to eliminate pirate radio from their control of the airwaves in the 1980s. We may take radio for granted these days, but what if we were forced to pay for these 'free' songs? Or what if the government controlled who was allowed to broadcast? I imagine there would be an uproar. If the entertainment industry wishes to continue making money, they cannot simply expect the world governments to jail millions of people and create an effective web-dictatorship. They must adapt, evolve and find a new way in which to attract buyers, in essence finding something that is 'better than free.' Be it an emphasis on touring, merchandise or packaging, the industry must no longer be given free reign to influence policy. I look forward to my opponent's response, thank you and keep seeding.