Copyright laws are necessary in order for a society to have an effective creative industry.

Thanks also to my opponent for an enjoyable debate. My opponent instigated this debate with a clear resolution which he then defined in broad detail. His definitions, sourced from the highly reputable http://www.merriam-webster.com...... made it clear that effectiveness in this case meant "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect" and it was under these conditions that I accepted the debate. My obligation was therefore clear: to provide logical evidence of circumstances where a creative industry could still produce some kind of desired effect to someone without the absolute need for copyright laws. As I have clearly provided many such examples, it seems to me that a Con vote should be inevitable, although this of course will be up to the voters (of which I am not one!) In subsequent rounds my opponent has attempted to 'shift the goalposts' of what 'effective' means. As he provided the original definition, which I then accepted, I think it would have been decent of him to stick by it, but again it will be up to voters to decide who's position represents better conduct and stronger arguments. As I have presented several examples of desired effects being produced, I think I have proved my argument, yet out of courtesy, I will respond to the specific points my opponent raised in his last post. "in order for you to defend the productiveness, the industry must remain productive, which cannot happen without copyright laws." My opponent does not explain why industries can not remain productive without copyright laws, but in any case, in order to be effective under the definitions provided, they do not need to 'remain' productive (very few creative industries are likely to last for all time) merely to 'be' productive at some point. "Ah, but if the creative industry is not effective for those who create, the creative industry will cease to exist." This sounds like a resolution for a separate debate to me. I have also shown examples of how artists can still achieve desired effects through creative industry without copyright laws. "Without artists to exploit, however, there can be no exploiters." We are getting into minor technicalities here but actually, the object being exploited is not the artists themselves but rather their artistic products, so even supposing the unlikely event that every single artist stopped creating art, there would still exist a vast number of already created works of art that could continue to be exploited (developed or used to greatest advantage - http://www.google.co.uk...= ) I said: "the bizarre sequence of events described by my opponent is of course ludicrous." My opponent said: "Without copyright laws, it happens to EVERY ARTIST ALIVE." Hmmm. A difficult statement to prove. I said: "Some kinds of artist's materials are very cheap (some artists create valuable pieces from recycled junk materials) so therefore the argument for artists not profiting does not mean that all creative industries cannot remain productive." My opponent said: "Those many hours that the artist put into creating their work? Another man could easily gather identical or near-identical materials and shape them together in that way (much quicker with a model to work with) and steal the credit." The point here was about artist's not being able to afford materials, not about being credited for their work, which I have discussed elsewhere. "Show me an artist who would actually continue to "artify" if received no credit and no profit." Thankfully, not all art in this world is created with profit in mind, many school-children, amateur hobbyists and mentally ill patients produce artistic works all the time without seeking profit and only receiving credit from their teachers and immediate peers. I said: ""Please provide some evidence that all artists who have been ripped off will lose the will to create. I think I can probably find some evidence that will disprove this." My opponent said: "I have the quote from Wikipedia, but beyond that, that task would be difficult, as today, we have copyright laws, so there aren't any authors out there who are ripped off as I have spoken of here." The quote from Wikipedia says nothing of the sort as I shall discuss below, no but there are many other ways apart from the bizarre home-made book example in which artists can be ripped off either within the copyright laws or by stretching them. Here are a few articles showing examples of this: http://www.theinquirer.net... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.news.com.au... In none of these, do the artists concerned express losing the will to create, in fact they make statements such as: "I chose to do this on my own, at great financial expense to myself, because I knew they wouldn't understand what it is, for one. And secondly, I didn't want it coming from a place of marketing, I wanted it coming from a place that was pure to the project." (Trent Reznor in the heraldsun article above.) This shows that profit is not the main desired effect for some artists. "It [Wikipedia quote] is relevant because it talks about how before copyright laws, authors would go into poverty and cease to write, and there was a huge decline in writing until copyright laws were introduced." I assume my opponent is reading between the lines of the quote he posted. While it talks of "encouragement for learning" and does discuss poverty ("Ruin") it does not talk of authors ceasing to write or of any "huge decline in writing until copyright laws were introduced." I said:"I have given ample examples of such desirous effects that could still be achieved and my opponent needs to tackle all of them and prove them wrong, rather than inadequately arguing against just one of them." My opponent said: "Not if one effect is necessary for all of the other effects to be accomplished." I take it from this that my opponent concedes that if artists continued to produce art then desired effects could indeed be accomplished and achieved. I have shown many examples of cases where artistic works would still be produced without copyright laws as well as showing that existing artistic works could still be marketed and sold (in fact, more easily) without them. Therefore, I negate the resolution as defined by my opponent. Thanks again to my opponent and to readers and voters.