BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts

Publicly funded research is not the sole property of researchers, indeed Universities demand to keep the rights not the individual researchers so the individual inventor or researcher is not benefiting at all from any profits.[1] When the state chooses to fund an area of academic work it is doing so for the benefit for all of society, not just for the profit of a single researcher, group, or university organisation. The only way for the state to fully do its duty in providing for its citizens is for it to demand that the products of its funding be made available to the public who pay for its development. [1] Anon. (28 July 2005) “Guidelines on the Ownership of Data University of Louisville”, University of Lousiville. http://louisville.edu/research/policies-procedures/guidelines-on-the-ownership-of-data-university-of-louisville.html
It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits

If universities want to invest in pursuits that will not have any tangible benefit for society then they are welcome to do so. But they should not expect to be able to do that on the government dime. If people want to study the humanities they can pay the tuition fees needed, and universities should be able to prioritize its funding as they prefer. The state acts best when it serves the public interest. By making the research and work of academics who receive state funding available to the public it does its job by freeing people to use vast amounts of information to the betterment of all. If that means a few less books about Marxist-Feminist literary theory, then that is a cost the state should be willing to pay.
The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure

The expansion of knowledge that throwing all information generated in universities with state-funded research into the public domain would precipitate a vastly more influential effect on the process of research and development. Far from stifling innovation, more people would be able to examine and build upon research, magnifying the value of the initial work. What is lost from the disincentives of some institutions from taking public funding will be more than made up for by the vast knowledge base of the whole of society that now has the ability to generate derivative works for everyone’s further benefit.
Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.

Consumers benefit from grey imports. The economics of grey importation drives sourcing to low-cost economies. Even if retailers take some of this benefit as improved profit margins, typically at least some of it will be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. Grey imports also allow consumers to buy products that may not yet be available in their own market, because they have not yet been released, or because in their market the manufacturer feels there is insufficient demand. Thus, grey imports expand consumer choice. Many films, DVD's and video games are released in one region months before others, and grey imports allow enthusiasts to access their favoured products earlier than they otherwise would1. 1 Bun, Mara and Horrocks, Steve, 'In Support of Parallel Imports of CDs', Australian Consumers' Association, February 1998 improve this
Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.

Allowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy. 1 Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" 1776 improve this
Impossible to Stop.

Governments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards 1BBC News, 'Tesco defeated in cheap jeans battle', 31 July 2002,
The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade

Allowing grey imports is consistent with the basic principles of free trade. (Free trade principles – WTO1) If a manufacturer/distributor is selling the same item at different prices in two countries, free market economics suggests that the rational purchaser will purchase in the cheaper of the two, presuming, for example, that the difference will not be wholly swallowed up by transaction and transportation costs or taxes. If this logic holds for a consumer choosing between two jeans shops in his town, it must also hold for a retailer choosing between a jeans manufacturer’s price lists in two countries. Until recently, there was an information asymmetry (rational markets requiring information symmetry), as the manufacturer knew about their differential pricing, but the purchaser did not; information technology has now changed the equation and allowed the market to operate more efficiently. Not only this, but consumers can already buy products from pretty much anywhere in the world, as long as they can pay the postage. 1World Trade Organisation "UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS", WTO 2011 improve this
Grey goods come into the country, but money goes out, weakening the economy.

Grey imports damage the importing economy. By reducing the profitability of the manufacturer/distributor in the importing country, grey imports accordingly often lessen the amount of money that the company can invest in its operations in that country. This is a vicious circle which may reduce demand and so lead to greater inefficiencies in official importation. An acceptance of imports – especially of unclear provenance – hastens the demise of the manufacturing base of the importing country.1 The manufacturer will have less reason to support the brand locally through, for example, advertising, as the benefit does not show up in their local results and, in any case, grey imports tends to start focusing consumers’ minds on price rather than the brand identity. This can be detrimental to the advertising and media spend in the importing country, which for a premium consumer goods brand (e.g. perfume, clothing) could represent quite a significant economic benefit. What is a loss for the economy is also of course a loss for the government. The United States Internal Revenue Service estimated 15% of workers did not pay taxes, a $345billion shortfall from what should have been paid in large part as a result of workers in the grey economy of which there are more than 140,000 in San Diego alone.2 1Peacock, Louisa, 2010, ‘Go East, if you want that top job’, The Telegraph, 19 November 2010,  2Calbreath, Dean, ‘Hidden economy a hidden danger’, Signs On San Diego, 30 May 2010
Once a good has been sold, manufacturers have no business telling their customers how to use it. This includes selling that good on.

In general we do not accept as moral or socially permissible the idea that the makers of a good can tell their customers where and when they may use that good, who they may give it to, where and when. Car manufacturers do not sell cars on the basis you will only drive to the shops and back, clothes makers do not sell clothes on the basis you will only wear them on Sundays or every full moon. Limiting customer ability to resell items they have paid for in full is irrational and immoral.   improve this
Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products.

A free flow of goods is not always an automatic good. The extra transport and pollution involved in grey imports alone is a serious argument against it. Grey importers often do not make clear that products sold under the same brand name in different markets are in fact sometimes tailored to suit the local market environment. So, for example, one of the reasons for lower pricing in some products in particular countries is that they do not include all of the same ingredients as a product sold under the same brand name in another country. This can be, for example, because the performance needs (e.g. the climate), regulatory framework, or consumers' willingness to pay in the two countries vary. Accordingly, in the importing country, consumers may end up paying for a familiar brand that is not actually as well designed for their needs as the domestically marketed version. 1 There are many practical problems with grey importation. For example, consumers may not understand usage instructions. 1 Santos, Botchi, 'Why locally sold cars are still better than grey-market options, 26 January 2010 improve this
Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.

Consumers do not really benefit overall from grey imports. Although manufacturers may reduce prices in some (typically, richer) countries, they are at least as likely to raise prices in less developed economies, depriving consumers there of access to international brands and luxury goods, and so depriving them of a real choice and in some cases the full product.1 In addition, they will still have to pay all the taxes and the losses from lack of regulation which have been avoided in some way or lose the services those taxes provide. The loss of revenue from grey imports can mean that production is limited or even halted going forward, even though there is market demand for more products from the manufacturer. The film industry shows this clearly. Manufacturer protections of their products (for example region specific DVD's and PCs) actually increase costs for all consumers. 1 Etherington-Smith, James, '"Grey" imports: The black and white of it', mybroadband.co.za, 14 December 2010 improve this
Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.

Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products. Many manufacturers/distributors wish to control their distribution outlets for sound commercial reasons, for example, to protect the image of their brand. This becomes very difficult, possibly impossible, to do if grey imports are allowed, as this circumvents their planned distribution network. It becomes much harder for a manufacturer/ distributor to track their products where they have been used in a grey importation. This can lessen their effectiveness when they need this information, such as for a safety recall. "It is unclear whether adequate mechanisms are in place to adequately recall parallel trade medicines. Batch number recording is not consistently applied throughout the supply chain and in practice may make comprehensive product recall difficult, creating a risk to patient safety". 1 1 Trade and Industry Committee, Eighth Report, 29 June 1999 improve this
The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade

Free trade involves a principle of free will. The buyer should be able to decide to whom he wishes to sell and on what terms, and if the seller does not accept those terms then the buyer should be able to refuse to deal with him. Manufacturers can have many good reasons for choosing to price goods at different levels in different countries, such as their wish to build a long-term brand preference by cheaper initial marketing in a developing economy, or their desire to maintain an aura of exclusivity in mature markets through high pricing and confining sales to specialist retailers. Grey imports result in the manufacturer/ distributor effectively losing some, and often most, control of their pricing and retailing strategy in the importing country. This reduces their capacity to position the brand as they see appropriate. In extremis, a company can be put out of business in one nation by its own operations overseas! improve this
Grey goods come into the country, but money goes out, weakening the economy.

Grey imports benefit the importing economy. As some grey imports will be products originally targeted at a foreign market but which turn out to achieve some popularity in the host market, they increase foreign trade. In this way, grey imports act to internationalise consumer tastes and cross-cultural understanding. Through the downward pressure on retail prices, grey imports will also encourage industry to more efficiency, as ultimately factory gate prices will be expected to fall too. This leads to rising living standards in the cheaper economy as prices balance out, as we can see in for example China, with it's recent massive rises in living standards.1 1 Mortishead, Carl, ‘China’s rising living standard cranks up resource competition’ The Australian, 18 October 2007 improve this
Once a good has been sold, manufacturers have no business telling their customers how to use it. This includes selling that good on.

While we do not see limitations on reselling by customers in general, there are, in fact, a good few occasions where such limitations on reselling and use occur. Books and other media are limited through copyright laws in their ability to be legitimately re-sold, motor insurance is indeed sold at least partly on the basis of what you are going to do with your vehicle.
Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products.

A free flow in goods is a desirable end in itself. The rational, efficient supply chain of grey imports reflects the ideal of the free market. Moving it from the shadows to a position of legitimacy would make it even more efficient, by reducing the effort currently employed to keep the imports' trail hidden, etc. There is also job creation involved in the distribution network. For example, the logistics and transportation activities involved in grey imports will create new work as the trade grows. improve this
The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option.

Using drones cuts down the options on the ground. A drone can only keep circling or go in for the attack; their only option is to kill a target or let them escape. Using ground forces; either your own, or in this case the Pakistani or Yemeni military, provides the third option of capturing the target. This is ethically a much better position for the United States to be in as it means that the terrorists can be given the option to surrender rather than simply being killed. This in turn would provide the benefit of allowing a trial helping to show the justice of the operation. Moreover these captured militants would likely be valuable intelligence assets who could be questioned which may well lead the intelligence services to other terrorists.   Finally using drones is a very aggressive and provocative stance as it prevents any possibility of a peaceful resolution.  The usage of drones immediately eliminates the possibility of negotiation because drones are remote from their operators. This means that drones are unlikely to be useful in the many situations that could be helped by any form of contact.
The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction.

Using drones encourages the use of lethal force rather than alternatives. The reason for this is obvious – it is much easier to resort to violence if you know there is no risk to yourself. With the operators thousands of miles away in the United States the only risk of using drones is the loss of equipment. As Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, has said “The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.”[1] The use of drones is also politically expedient in a way that otherwise the use of force would not be. Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence, points out that the strike campaign is dangerously seductive as it is “low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness… It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”[2] The use of force therefore becomes the first choice not the option of last resort. Even those within the U.S. administration such as Secretary of state Clinton have worried about a drones-only approach that ignored other options and does not look at solving the larger problems.[3] [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012. [2] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012, p.8 [3] ibid, p.8
Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.

The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity. Equally worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort.[1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not.[2] [1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012. [2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.
The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.

The United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United States is aware of this potential and President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has stated “Other nations also possess this technology, and many more nations are seeking it, and more will succeed in acquiring it. President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may — and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.”[1] This is exactly the problem; do we really want to live in a world where any country can carry out targeted killings of people who are in another nation? Such a world would have the ever present risk of a covert conflict becoming a much more open shooting war. [1] McNeal, Greg, ‘Is the U.S. Setting Precedents in its Drone Wars’, Forbes, 6 June 2012.
UAVs cause less collateral damage.

Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is however definitely open to question whether these attacks really do cause less civilian casualties. Local activists believe that around 3,000 people have been killed in Waziristan of whom only 185 were named al Qaeda operatives – a very poor ratio of 16 civilians for every al Qaeda man killed.[1] The Brookings institution meanwhile estimates that for every al Qaeda and Taliban militant killed there are ten civilian casualties.[2] If either of these estimates are anywhere near the mark then there are very large number of civilian casualties, much higher than proposition believes, and probably higher than other forms of strikes would cause. [1] Shackle, Samira, ‘Drones and the “bugsplats” they cause’, New Statesman, 13 June 2012. [2] Byman, Daniel L., ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?’, ForeignPolicy.com, 14 July 2009.
UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.

It is wrong to simply make drones “a default strategy to be used anywhere”. Yes some of the time drones will be the right choice for catching terrorists and other militants but much of the time they won’t be. Instead of spurning institutions like the ISI and Pakistan’s Military we should be relying on them to fight extremism. This targeting of terrorists is happening in other countries sovereign territory. Their sovereignty should be respected wherever possible meaning that the Pakistanis, the Somalis and the Yemenis should be the ones who carry out these engagements. Again here there is the difficulty of not knowing how many were killed in drone strikes (see counter to prop 1). We cannot compare other types of strikes unless we have more reliable figures. This is something that sending special forces in would help with; they would have much more accurate figures of who they kill and could check whether they really killed the person they were supposed to be targeting. This would prevent any attempt to inflate the kill count through including those they are not sure of as terrorists.[1] [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012.
Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.

Today most forms of conflict do not have much risk to western militaries. While the attacks were carried out from high in the sky NATO did not suffer a single loss in combat operations over Kosovo in 1999.[1] Moreover this lack of danger with UAVs is potentially immoral; we no longer have a war in which both sides are at risk rather a shooting range for drones to kill ‘terrorists’. Having at least some danger is needed as a restraint on the use of force. A good litmus test to use for the authorisation of lethal force would be whether the public would find the goals of the action worthwhile even if it did result in the loss of several soldiers. [1] Gallis, Paul E., ‘Kosovo: Lessons Learned from Operation Allied Force’, CRS Report for Congress, 19 November 1999, p.8