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

Thanks to my opponent for his prompt response. My opponent has added a new definition which, like all of his others I am happy to accept: Industry - a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) However he then goes on to say that this definition means that profit is a necessary attribute of an industry while it in fact says no such thing. According to this definition industry must be productive OR profit-making, not necessarily both. Therefore as an industry does not have to be sustainable or profitable to produce a desired effect, the content of my first post still fully applies. Later in his post he suggests that we should limit his resolution to apply to "the creators of the industry" which he suggests are the artists. I don't think this is entirely fair as his initial post and resolution did not make such a stipulation, merely requiring a desired effect, not defining who would desire such an effect. All the examples I gave in my first post are of desired effects produced by creative industry and my opponent is not justified in dismissing any of them. As a side note, while the artists are clearly the creative people within the industry, in almost all cases it is the money-men who have created the industry (the productive or profit-making enterprise.) As I explained in my first post these parties would certainly not need copyright laws to achieve their desired effects, in fact quite the opposite. The story of the artist turned McDonald's worker is funny (especially the idea of people buying a home-printed stapled together book or of a shop not removing it from their shelves) and touching but quite irrelevant to the resolution as defined by my opponent. This scenario is certainly not producing a desired effect for the artist who has been ripped off, but as it is providing one for the plagiarising artist it actually disproves the resolution. The same applies to the examples of video games and movies.The idea that all authors would experience the bizarre sequence of events described by my opponent is of course ludicrous. 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. Yes many artists crave personal recognition but there are many others who just want their work to be experienced by as many people as possible, for these individuals copyright laws are not "absolutely needed" for the industry to achieve one of the effects they desire. 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. The Wikepedia source is fascinating but I don't see it's relevance to this debate. I fully support the idea of copyright laws, I just think that a creative industry does not absolutely need them to be "effective" as defined by my opponent. My opponent needs to satisfy the very stringent resolution he set up and prove that the creative industries would not be able to produce effects desirable to anyone if copyright laws were not in place. 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. Thankyou.