Sampling (in music) is not theft

I have not misunderstood my opponent. My opponent has a bit of a conundrum. He says he would like to ignore the legality of the issue of sampling, debate the morality, and doesn't realize that what makes sampling moral or immoral is the legal status of the sampling itself. It is the legal rights to a piece of work that determine whether or not an artist will make any income from that work, and if a piece of work is used in the privacy of your home without harm to the original composer then there is no moral question. That, I am sure, we can agree on. However, my opponent points out several instances where he says sampling is moral because the user of the sample has little or no monetary gain from the use, and immoral instances he claims are rare. Let's examine both later. "my position on wishing to debate morality rather than legality"- Sampling is a legal issue, and becomes immoral because of it's legal status. If there was no need to protect the author of the original work, there would also be no moral question regarding it's unauthorized use- the authority is a legal question. If the question does not exist, then neither does the harm arising from that question, and as a result, the immorality. Because we are speaking of an industry governed by laws (music industry), an act regulated by this industry (sampling), and the act can be of benefit or detriment to the owner of the sampled piece then we must address the legality, if not debate it. Though I am debating the morality, I am relying on the legal authority rendered to the owner of the piece as a basis of that morality/immorality. "TWO distinct meanings for BOTH of these terms: action OR crime, permission OR legal right"- Per your definition- 'theft: the action of stealing.'- 'steal: 1. take (something) without permission and without intending to return it. - dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as your own.' Sampling without permission is theft. That is per your own definition. Dishonesty is immoral. Taking something without permission (especially something that is not yours) is immoral. Passing someone else's work off as your own is immoral. Do we really need to debate these point by point? "Perhaps a good example of the first would be someone stealing your regular parking spot (an action without permission), an example of the second: someone stealing your car(a crime without legal right.)"- My opponent has made two comparisons regarding sampling. He implies that sampling in the sense that he is referring to is like stealing someone's regular parking spot. Yet he also implies that if we were discussing the legality of sampling, it would be more like stealing a car. My opponent is errant in that the lack of a legal insight does not diminish the gravity of the crime. A piece of musical work is hardly a "regular parking spot". Indeed if a written piece of work as passed off as one's own, or used without permission it is legally "plagiarism", but the lack of a plagiarism law does not mean the act is no longer immoral. Luckily, we have laws in both cases, and they are there to protect those who DO have legal authority and/or permission for the works' use. "I will present again THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS of (the PURELY MORAL rather than moral AND legal definitions) to which the title of this debate relates"- My opponent claims to present moral definitions, but fails to define the morality of his definitions. Is "stealing"- take (something) without permission and without intending to return it. - dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as your own.', and 'theft: the action of stealing' moral or immoral? I argue that in the context, the acts are immoral. "In the real world where millions of musicians are creating billions of sample-based tunes, the vast majority (to the degree of at least 99.99999%) do not earn any big money and in fact generally no money at all"- My opponent makes a completely opinionated claim and gives statistics that he came up with off the top of his head. I can assure you, again, that as a member of ASCAP I see a grave error with my opponent's assessment- Money is not the measure of morality in stealing someone else's work, and I would fight tooth and nail for a penny if it was owed to me for my work. My opponent contradicts himself in stating "I do consider it moral theft...earns a significant amount of money", and then justifying sampling that does not generate a great deal of money. Indeed the failure to make a significant amount of money neither negates the effort to make the money, nor does it negate the theft of someone else's work. "The majority of sampling is done by amateurs with no chance of their music ever being purchased by anyone and generally in a financial deficit from their musical hobbies rather than profiting from them"- This is an assumption that my opponent attempts to pass off as a fact. The issue of sampling was rampant, at least, in the 90's, and laws have been adjusted, modified, and changed because of abuse. http://www.mtv.com... http://law.freeadvice.com... http://www.redorbit.com... "A large proportion is done by amateurs who might sell 10 - 500 copies to friends and just about cover their costs. This is not theft" 'theft: the action of stealing.'- 'steal: 1. take (something) without permission and without intending to return it. - dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as your own.'- This is definitely theft. How about the local artist who makes a track, releases it for free on the internet, has his music placed on a mixtape, or sampled into another song, never makes a penny, yet someone is out there making $50- $2500 without that artist making a cent for something he gave out for free? Just because the music was distributed for free that does not give everyone the legal right to use it for monetary gain no matter how miniscule the amount might be to you. Is it less to steal a bag of potato chips than it is to steal a car? Sure, but they are both immoral, and they are both stealing. "A significant proportion is done by established artists, nearly all these tracks are never released"- Again, a stat made up completely in my opponent's head. A "significant" portion that is never released is probably not released because clearance for the samples were not granted. It is not theft because the act was not committed. It's as if you went to the store to buy a candybar, realized you didn't have enough money, and left the store without taking the candybar. "When pieces of music featuring samples do become hit singles, or even just album-tracks by low-selling artists,in virtually all cases every sample is scrupulously cleared and the owner of the original recording (the mechanical copyright; this is almost always a record label) as well as the owner of the composition (the intellectual rights) both receive a substantial sum"- More assumptions and false "facts". This entire paragraph, however, is irrelevant because we are talking about "cleared" samples. That means the user has acquired legal permission from the owner (even though my opponent claims to not want to discuss the legality). "It is only in a tiny minority or a "few special cases" that an artist makes money sampling something that has not been paid for. This IS theft."- Not true. Kanye West, DJ Quik, Method Man, Redman, Dr. Dre, Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, Common, MARRS, Biz Markie, The Verve, Negativland, Dangermouse, Jay-Z, and other artists and their body's of work do not amount to "a tiny minority" nor a "few special cases". My now claims that the works are public domain because they are "in" the public domain. Youtube does not agree with my opponent: http://www.youtube.com... The posters of this music are breaking the law as well. This does not make it righ