Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

First of all, I would like to point out that the resolution is a universal claim. This means that the resolution implies that all cases of music downloading from "conventionally illegal" sources are unjustified. I would also like to remind my opponent that the negation of a universal claim is not another universal claim (all cases of music downloading from "conventionally illegal" sources are justified) but an existential claim; in other words "there is at least one case of music downloading from a "conventionally illegal source" that is justified. And indeed, I affirm this point. First though, we must be clear on what you mean by "conventionally illegal" sources. For this round I will assume this refers in the main to torrent programs, and others such as Limewire and Soulseek, that allow the user to download music free of charge over the internet. If PRO had something else in mind I ask that he bring it up in the next round. Onwards. My burden in this debate is to show that in at least one case music is downloaded from a conventionally illegal source, this action was justified. My case for this round is radiohead's album "in rainbows". In 2007 Radiohead self released their album online, encouraging listeners to download the album at whatever price they thought was reasonable. 62% of users downloaded it for free. [1] Thus anyone who downloaded "in rainbows" from a P2P program paid exactly the same amount as the majority of people who obtained the album from the official source. Since Radiohead allowed people to download the album free of charge, anyone who did so regardless of source was justified in that action. To address my opponent's other contentions: 1. Harm to artists/performers I would first like to say that, except in special cases such as Radiohead's album above, illegal downloading is stealing and thus a crime. Given that however, it doesn't follow that it is never justified or that downloaders are solely at fault. The enormous leaps in technology over the last twenty years has easily rendered the old way of doing things in the recording industry obsolete. Yet record companies and artists continue to insist on running their businesses as if nothing has changed. Yes, they are hurt by the new technology, but this is partly because they allow themselves to be. If they restructured the way they ran their businesses they would still be able to make a profit selling and distributing music (though perhaps a diminished one). An example for comparison: If I live with a thief, it is their action not mine that is wrong. However, one could still say that I am foolish and harming myself for not locking my door before I leave the house and for leaving valuables around. IOW: it can be true both that illegal downloading is wrong and that there are actions record companies can take to reduce their losses. If the demand for a given product falls the profits of the manufacturers will fall as well. That is simply the result of a consumer based economy. It doesn't apply unfairly or inappropriately to only certain industries. 2. Money to fund terrorism All I can say to this is: so what? The manner in which money is made and the ultimate use to which it is put by the person making it are completely unrelated. If I ran a charity providing shelter to the homeless and siphoned some of my donations to funding Osama Bin Ladin would that make my charity work "unjustified"? Absolutely not. The two do not rise and fall together. Consider the resolution negated. 1.http://news.cnet.com...