intellectual property rights

"First, let it be known that, due to the nature of the subject, the opponent carries full burden of proof in this debate." No. To expand: Con is the one with a proposal; Con is proposing to abolish all intellectual property rights. As the one proposing action, and the removal of rights, the burden is on Con to prove Con's case. If Con wanted it to be otherwise, that should have been established in the Round 1 post, where the parameters were set for acceptance. "The reason for this is that the notion of "Intellectual Property," by its very nature, restricts full natural individual freedom." So do ALL property rights. In fact, so do all laws. This is not a debate of the concept of property rights as a whole. "We innately have full freedom, but some of the freedoms are taken away through law. And proponents of these laws carry the burden to justify the necessity to restrict natural freedom." Even taken at face value, Con's demand can be met thusly: Intellectual Property is concept recognized by the state in the same vein as Physical Property. As a recognized right, OF COURSE the state is justified in creating laws to protect it. Those laws should stay in place for the same reason ALL property rights stay in place. To repeat: This was not set up as a debate on the nature of property rights, but whether the specific case of intellectual property rights should be abolished. As such, my opponent bears the burden of establishing WHY intellectual property rights should be abolished. Con is arguing that property rights should not exist. For the record, I will not be defending the idea that current IP law is well done. Nor do I, as Pro, have to defend ALL types of Intellectual Property Rights, as my opponent's position is that ALL intellectual property rights should be abolished; the burden is on him to establish why that is. "Some proponents of IP argue..." The demarcation between "truths" and applications of principles in a specific manner is by no means arbitrary. The arguments here are not arguments against intellectual property rights; showing that it is sometimes difficult, in some circumstances, to draw a distinction between a scientific discovery and its practical application, does not negate the concept of intellectual property rights. Intellectual Property rights are about creativity. Not the creativity of the process (which gets to truth), but the creativity of the APPLICATION (which is the unique contribution of the creator) "Let us think about this example..." The two examples you give (Lawnmower man and Einstein) are perfect for our purposes. In the case of Lawnmower man, the Lawnmower did not exist prior to his creation of it, while E=MC^2 exists independent of its discovery: there is nothing more to it than the formulation of what is already true. The non-arbitrary difference is the creativity OF THE APPLICATION. Another genius would have discovered E=MC^2. It is the sole answer. However, another inventor would create, using the same principles, a different lawnmower. My opponent then begins talking about relative timeframes of patents and copyrights, which is immaterial to the question of whether the protections should exist in the first place. The same question could be asked about prison sentences, but that doesn't justify getting rid of prisons altogether. "If we are following..." The points made in this paragraph ignore the fact that Intellectual Property Rights are primarily concerned with the SALE of the protected item. If somone has invented a new item, I am free to make it myself; I just cannot sell it to others, as that is the right of the inventor. IP laws are laws regulating not the individual, but commerce. "The purpose of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict that arises over scarce resources by establishing a system of ownership." I disagree with that point. The purpose of property rights is to protect the rights of ownership; scarcity has nothing inherently to do with it, and if my opponent would like to assert that, he is free to establish that point. "If we were in the Garden of Eden, where all goods (such as land) were infinitely abundant, then there would be no need for property rights; if you stole my car, it wouldn"t matter because I could simply retrieve an identical one on the fly without any hassle." That may be the case to you, but I disagree. If you steal the car that I have as "mine", that I do not wish you to take, then you have stolen, you are in the wrong, and the fact that it's trivially easy to replace the car is meaningless to the moral principle at issue. The punishment would be less, as the damage is less, but it would nonetheless still be a wrong. "IP protects information as property, even though information is not scarce." No. IP, in concept, protects the rights of the originator to control the sale of their creation. All laws are based on that premise, even the ones that prohibit things like torrents (where no profit is generated among the torrentors) on the assumption that each torrent equals one lost sale. "Let us think about the nature of information. If you take my car, I cannot possibly have a car. However, if you take the "textual pattern" of a story I wrote, I will still have the original copy of it. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." [8] Thus, information is not consumable, and it has no natural scarcity. IP simply produces an artificial, unjustified scarcity and protects it." Again, my opponent has failed to establish that that is the purpose of property rights. But even if I were to accept it, the scarcity being protected by IP law is the MONEY provided by sales. There are not an infinite number of buyers. My opponent then moves on to an attack on the concept of utilitarianism, which has no bearing on this debate. I find it interesting that Trademarks are included in this discussion. The purpose of trademarks is different than most other creative works. Trademarks exist so that a brand can differentiate itself. Without trademark, ANYONE can sell Coca-Cola, and call it that, and put it in a red can with the same font, so consumers have no way of determining what the "genuine" Coca-Cola is. The rights of intellectual property protect the rights of the consumer to know what they're buying (trademark), the rights of the producer to be known for their own works, and the rights of the producer to recoup the cost and control the distribution for profit of their work. The idea that ALL IP is invalid I call untenable. Commerce is regulated by the state, and the state has an interest in seeing htat the originators of information be compensated for their efforts.