Lars Ulrich vs. Napster

My opponent stated, ""the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC" I'd like to inform my opponent that it is difficult to create a negative construct when not presented with constructs to negate. Let the voters know that I was not given any constructs to work off of for this debate as it was presented by the instigator (CON). But, none the less, I will attempt to present a negation thanks to my opponent finally offering positive contentions for me to work with (to have something to negate). Now let us begin… Official quote from Metallica about Napster, "[they] encourages piracy by enabling and allowing users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers." Napster is an online music file sharing service created by Shawn Fanning. It helps users share music and bypass established copyright laws that those files possess. I will be defending the musical group Metallica and their right to their own intellectual property from the piracy of Napster. In 2000, Metallica gave Napster an ultimatum to remove their property from the system or they would sue, and Napster responded that it could not remove illegal copies of the band's music or help stop the illegal distributions that its users were making unless Metallica could provide proof of specific violations. Transferring of Metallica's music, however, was done without the band's permission, and the band is not receiving any compensation for lost sales. This blatantly violates copyright laws. Napster is distributing software that's purpose is to permit Napster to profit by encouraging pirating of intellectual property of musical artists. Universities who are allowing Napster to facilitate this illegal activity are also looters in the act, never so much as blocking ILLEGAL pirating on their computers and helping engage in thievery. Napster is aware of its use: "It claims to have the world's largest MP music library available to its users and has virtually guaranteed its users access to any music they want." (http://www.virtualrecordings.com...) Napster's motives are for profit. Due to the large popularity of its site, Napster makes handsome amounts of money from advertisers and from referrals to other websites. Napster has also publicly announced that they are hiring "talented people to bring the latest and greatest music technology to the web." (NAPSTER) Napster is trafficking property while very conscious of what its users are doing with its software. Napster has knowingly not intervened and blocked the piracy going on through its servers, and has not taken any action to protect the artists' property. Through this conduct herein, Napster shall be sued for materially contributing and encouragement of piracy. So, to state specific violations for Napster… Quite simply, Napster has violated three different areas of law: copyright infringements, unlawful use of digital audio interface device, and the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS: The US copyright laws protect reproduction, distribution, performance, display, license, and the preparation of derivative works for an author. "The Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings." (http://topics.law.cornell.edu...) UNLAWFUL USE OF DIGITAL AUDIO INTERFACE DEVICE "A "digital audio interface device" is any machine or device that is designed specifically to communicate digital audio information and related interface data to a digital audio recording device through a nonprofessional interface." -- 17 U.S.C. section 1001(2) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) This violates the prohibition, importation, manufacture and distribution in 17 U.S.C. section 1001. This is a direct violation of 17 U.S.C. section 1001, and my plaintiff is entitled to the damages caused by such an illegal use. RACKETEERING INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO) RICO was instated to stop ongoing organized crime. Napster qualifies as organized crime as it is a centralized enterprise run for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity (PIRACY) for profit. Stolen property has been transferred interstate through the use of Napster (violating 18 U.S.C. section 2314). The value of the stolen property exceeds $5,000. The defendants have conducted their affairs through racketeering activity. To conclude my complaint, I will address the negative contentions. "Negative Contentions: 1) Napster is the current future of music 2) Napster helps local, underground, and aspiring musicians 3) Napster does not hurt big music-makers like "Metallica" 4) Napster is a tame route to follow" 1) Napster is the demise of profits for musical artists and will not aid in the future of these musicians. It distributes works without permission and hinders profits which hurts the bands substantially. There is no future in corruption. 2) These musicians could give permission to Napster to distribute their works, and that would be perfectly fine. This is not at all, though, what it is doing to my plaintiff, Metallica. Metallica was never asked for permission for distribution. Napster distribution of underground work illegally also substantially hinders bands as they are receiving no profits from their works. 3) Napster steals profits from Metallica. It violates their copy rights, and traffics their property interstate. 4) Murder is tame to brutal murder, but it is still a crime. A violation is a violation. Piracy is piracy. And Napster is on a huge scale. Napster has claimed 15 million users in little more than a year. This is, by no means, "tame." Regards, Vi