BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Copy Protection and DRM Actively Restrict Important Rights

The rights of any citizen who purchases media is at stake in this issue. The rightful owner of media has the right to do with it as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the copyright holder's exclusive right to benefit from their work. The rights described in U.S. Fair Use law and precedent [[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html]] clearly do not infringe upon the copyright holder. It therefore follows that copy protection is an infringement upon the media owner's right to open expression and use of their own property. When the purpose of said actions is simply to make public comment on the music purchased or to critique it or use it for some other academic purpose then the free speech rights of those individuals are being violated, specifically because of the need to use the media to contextualize their opinions or lessons for everyone else. The critical importance of the rights of speech and artistic expression are undeniable. Artistic and cultural expressions are often contextualized and extended through society by sampling and re-imagining (Think of Andy Warhol's study of Campbell's soup cans or the use of music samples in mash-ups). Both cases would likely run afoul of current copyright protection laws as they are currently conceived in the DMCA. It is very clear that the wealth of media created today can be invaluable for the education of children. The reason is that through multimedia curricula, more information can be conveyed convincingly. This improves the quality of education and empowers students to exercise their own rights to free speech. However, it is prohibitively expensive for a teacher to buy 20-30 copies of a work and often the cost is beyond students' means. Allowing a reasonable number of copies for an educational use promotes these valuable enrichment activities and improves discourse throughout society.
No reasons for changes in the Status Quo

The appearance of private property is the crucial reason for the formation of the first governments. This means that the measures taken for preserving the right of private and intellectual property are the most important ones. By letting the countries to bypass the copyright protection technologies, they are making all of the IP products vulnerable, and they are opening a hole from which people with bad intentions can steal property more easily. This was explained throughout our second point, where we stated how the provision of the bypass can be misused, especially because you are not talking about individuals who are in need of the IP products for fair use reasons, but rather bigger institutions like schools and universities. If we are not tracking the use of this products on individual level, than the criterion for selecting which users can access these products can be easily misused for bad reasons. Currently, the tendencies of every well-developed country, are not only defending the private property rights, but they are focusing even more on the IP rights, which do not differ much from the private property rights. This means that the law in these countries allows every company or individual to distribute their own copyright technologies. Even if some of their software is vulnerable to hackers and programmers, it is the duty of the company to develop a secure software for their products, and results show that there are already software protections on games, movies, music and other media which have proven to be sufficient enough. EU will be making even more strict laws for the breaking this right, so we can see how the developed world is thinking that even the fair-use of IP is not allowed, because they are aware that it is the duty of the governments to fund the education and the other sectors with the needed content of IP, not the authors of the products, who are making for their own profit, and may stop, in case they are forced to work for others.
Clarifies a Blurry Line Regarding the Legality of Fair Use

At present, we feel there is a blurred line between legal and illegal uses of IP. Enforcement of these laws, in the U.S. and beyond, has been selective at best [[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/]]. Existing law clearly gives people the right to make copies of media for certain uses [[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html]], however the DMCA and other laws appear to ban these uses without directly addressing the conflict with existing precedent [[http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/DMCA/31236]]. Digital Rights Management (DRM) software directly prevents people from accessing their right of fair use by preventing copies from being made without a clear indication of whether the right to copy has been appropriately forfeited. This leads to confusion and people foregoing their rights because they are not certain the point to which they extend. The plan we propose clarifies the legal status of copy protection and ownership of digital media. The owner of digital media would now know that they can use and make copies of their property without fear of over-zealous prosecution. People do not need to worry whether a comparatively harmless sharing of music among friends might lead to lawsuits seeking thousands of dollars in damages. Regulators and enforcement officers will not see their time taken up by overzealous (but legal) prosecution of small-time file-sharers on behalf of companies that seek to make an example of someone. Side prop's plan still allows major IP violations, like large piracy operations and industrial espionage, to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, we merely draw a clear and more rational line between what is legal and what is not. In doing so, we remove fear from people's lives and encourage full expression of their rights.
Establishes a Clear Brightline in Favor of Data Freedom

Right now we see an ideological struggle over the future of the internet. One pole are those who feel like the corporate interests who own the hardware and sell products deserve a greater role in shaping the future of the internet. They seek to maximize profit and their position is that if a person chooses to go online then they tacitly accept an array of rules and obligations that go with it, including allowing their personal information to be used for targeted marketing, accepting that their data will be sent in a priority determined by payment and (most importantly to this debate) when they buy media, they are merely buying permission to access it from time to time. On the other side are those who believe that the internet should be focused around the users. This side believes that just because the internet makes personal data-mining, priority access to bandwith and copy protection possible, it does not make it right. We feel that many of the actions perpetuated by the corporate interests on the internet would not be tolerated in real life. We would not allow a company to troll through our garbage to determine what we buy, nor would we allow them to say that a book we bought could not be quoted or only read a particular number of times. We feel that a decision in favor of the Proposition sets a clear precedent that ownership of something as ephemeral as data does not give the owner complete liberty to determine its disposition. Copyright grants the holder the right to profit, but not control use. Copy protection software directly controls use. We feel that this precedent is a necessary step to stem the tide of advancing corporate interests and helps set the groundwork for a balanced and beneficial future. We feel that Opposition's stance of "let schools buy access to media" (response to Prop argument 1) really exemplifies this. Schools are struggling for resources already, should they be forced to pay to allow a student to use a brief clip for a presentation?
IP Rights motivation for creating and developing

The thrill of the hunt is what drives many to innovate; the money is merely a bonus. Was Da Vinci rich in proportion to the amount he created? Did Tesla die a wealthy man? If you look at many of the great innovators over time, you will find that they did not do it solely for profit. They wanted to create, to satiate a need deep inside themselves. Even the creator behind the polio vaccine claimed no patent[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk]]. To say they created great works because they solely wanted profit is to insult their memories, and we on side Prop stand firmly against this ideology. More importantly, our advocacy only pertains to disabling copy-protection technology. The remaining arsenal of IP protection techniques is unchanged. It is still illegal to profit from another's work, prosecutors can still charge pirates, courts may still award damages to compensate for stolen work. IP law that includes a Fair Use clause protect those who own the IP rights a work from significant loss. It does not allow others to profit directly from their work-e.g. the reprinting of a novel for monetary gain, or burning of DVDs to sell on street corners. What it allows is for people to either use the works to spread knowledge or create new intellectual works based off of previous ideas. Would the Opposition find it unreasonable for a student to quote a text if it was cited correctly? So, how does it differ if instead of writing a paper, the student was putting together a video presentation, where instead of written document it was oral and instead of quotes, they had movie clips? How, in essence, do movie clips differ from written quotes? The media does not define the message, just as breaking copy protection should not define illegality. Current copyright law reflects the reality of a period when content was physically tied to an object. Holding to antiquated notions of copyright helps no one.
The Berne Convention

On the issue of fairness. It is the right of the proposition to frame the debate. Everything we have discussed has been linked and cited, and far more information can be found online. Furthermore, the US is the only country that meets the criteria of the resolution: 1) Has codified Fair Use doctrine; AND 2) Has laws against bypassing copy protection for Fair Use purposes. These facts make the U.S. a good model for future, global policy. This is the legal contradiction our plan is meant to alter. It is already law in the European Union that copyright protection technologies be bypassable for certain Fair Uses[[http://bit.ly/av5eK7]] (Article 6, Section 4). In regards to individuals, side prop has only referred to individuals. When discussing school, we were speaking of actions by individual teachers on behalf of their students. These actions are recognized as legal usage of copyrighted material. Current law makes it a crime when the teacher break copyright protection to do this. The US and State Departments of Education do not provide everything to classrooms, and many teachers choose to go above and beyond. This should be encouraged, not dismissed as governmental responsibility. In regards to the misuse of the system. Side prop has already explained that stopping Piracy is a fool's endeavor, as copy protection has never successfully stopped a pirate. The DMCA contains provisions that allow for the litigation of infringements. Furthermore, our case serves as a clarification of what IS and IS NOT piracy and/or infringement. As for the Berne Convention, side prop would encourage side opp to read the items they cite, as the last Berne Convention amendment was in 1979 and so does not define Fair Use for digital media. Furthermore, it delegates the definitions of Fair Use for most media to the legislative bodies of each individual signatory [[http://bit.ly/9asK06]]. 'Fair Dealing' is a different doctrine adopted by countries based in UK Common Law.
Draconian Copy Protection Schemes Cause More Harm Than Good

This argument fails to present us with a reason to ban all the present Intellectual Property copyright technologies, but rather shows an example of how only one of all these was harmful to the users themselves. One thing that team affirmative forgot to take into consideration concerning this problem is the fact that after the scandal with the security breach of the protection software, the company was fined for the problem they caused. Moreover, they were forced to stop the selling of all the products with the lame software. The Draconian copyright protection system has a crucial role in the protection of different types of IP products such as video games, movies and software. Bigger efforts should be made in the field of copyright protection software, considering the fact that many countries do not have strickt laws for punishing the people who break the IP rights of an individual or a company. If we find particular dangerous and toxic substances in a bottle of milk produced by a certain company, it does not mean that we should ban any further production of milk, but rather punish the company for their mistake and remember not to make it in the future. To add insult on injury, this argument is not even connected to the current problem in the status quo. The users who were facing this problem were not even bypassing any laws for fair use reasons, but they rather bought the CD’s from Sony for their own entertainment. Contrary to what the proposition team said, producing copyright protection is a right held by any individual or company who produces any kind of products, and is a true example of efforts to achieve a better democratic society. This argument does not change the fact that the individuals should not have the power to legally bypass the copyright protection laws, because it often leads to breaking of the IP rights law, and it also makes a financial damage and demotivation to the authors, which is vulnerable for the general progress of the society.
Summary

One of the least important, but most argued clash point of this debate was about the copyright protection technologies and how the IP rights are currently protected. As we previously stated throughout this debate, as the resolution’s name implied, there was no need for them to say that they are bad and should be changed with a new regulation, but rather why they should be bypassed, which they failed to prove. Even if we agreed on the importance of this problem, we clearly said that just because we can find two or three examples of a lame protection code, it doesn’t mean that the method of Draconian copy protection should be stopped, since we mentioned many times during the debate that it is one of the most important measures that the companies can take in order to secure their media internationally (because of some not so strict laws in other countries). They didn’t even use examples relevant to the motion (fair use reasons), but mostly examples of companies who make products for entertainment purposes (SONY, GameSpy). Secondly, they mentioned that by not having the chance to visualize their critics and presentations, the people were omitted from enjoying the freedom of speech. But here, we clearly stated that just because the presentation can be improved by this method, doesn’t mean that it justifies the breaking of another right, someone’s IP. And we all know that we can all enjoy our rights as long as we don’t break the rights of others. Our point of motivation was also relevant to the debate, since implementing their plan may leave bad consequences for the society. The people who work by producing media content for educational purposes are not the ones who have responsibilities to work for the students instead of the governments, which are the ones who have duties to preserve the education. They tried to defend by giving us historic examples, and they clearly didn’t notice that the society is changing and the personal capital is the most important thing that drives the innovations. We also talked about the fact that the process of monitoring will be nearly impossible, since they were not talking about specific individuals, but rather about institutions, in which the criterion for which ones can bypass the laws can be easily misused. We would like to close this debate by saying that we strongly support the Status Quo. The first reason for defending it was because it’s the governments job to provide the citizens with the needed IP content. Team USA mentioned that the plan will be using only the sample from their country, and we are assuming that they think it can be implemented in other countries. There are different societies in which this plan would fail because the breaking of IP rights is not considered a crime, so the companies have to defend by using their own copyright technologies. If we want to achieve a society with motivated minds and new creations, we beg the judges to oppose the plan. We thank team USA for t
Copy Protection Interferes with Individual Property Rights

Maybe property rights are of critical importance in society but losing the ability to make copies of media doesn’t decrease the value of such materials; it actually increases their value because if something is less unavailable costs more than the things that are easy to get. So that means if the copyrighted work cannot be copied or distributed in any way by the individual who doesn’t own the copyright, the creator will get more benefits for his/her work which is more important than backing up files and the risk of loss (because of negligence). "Llegally bypass” is just a fancy synonym of the term “piracy”. Piracy is illegal and just putting the word “legally” in front of an illegal action does not make it legal. You say that piracy decreases the demand for copyrighted products and that that makes the products less appealing. Therefore “legally bypassing” the copyrighted protection not fair towards the creators of the mentioned work, not reasonable and illegal. If people choose to use the free service rather than the restricted pay one, they should be punished by the law. The easy way is not always the right way to do things. We know that it’s easier for people to download songs, movies and other media from torrents and sites like Limewire than buying the media instead, but that doesn’t approve the illegal action they’re doing. Illegal download of copyrighted work discourages the authors of that work to continue creating anything and disables them from making money from their work which is not fair towards their effort put into their creations. Copy protection does not interfere with Individual property right because it’s a mechanism that prevents the copying of someone’s work and the individual property(e.g. a CD the individual has purchased) by definition[[http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/property.html]] doesn't include the right to copy something that has been copyrighted (e.g. the CD).
Anticircumvention Laws Stifle The Advancement of Research into Cybersecurity

The purpose of the debate between the two sides is exclusively about whether we should let governments make some of the intellectual property to be able to be bypassed or not. In most of their arguments, side prop. Tries to prove how the current copyright protection technologies are not efficient and should not exist. The proposition should try to look again in the name of the motion and see that it even confirms that the protection technologies exist and should exist, but they should just be bypassed in certain fair use reasons. Therefore, every argument about how these technologies should be abolished make no sense with the resolution. In contrary, they fall silent when they have to prove us why they should be bypassed. The example with the Russian programmer shows one of many present situations with people who try to attack the IP rights for their own motives. We don’t know the exact motives of the action that he has taken, and as we stated, every single break of the IP right is illegal and gives an example of disorder in society. The GameSpy example is another repetition from what you stated in your second point, something that is not by any means concerned with the motion (fair use of IP), but just with entertainment content. The fact itself that this argument does not show an important reason of why bypassing the law is a more efficient way to provide intellectual property, rather than letting the governments to do their own job, and pay the innovators for the works they have done, while enabling the schools with education content speaks in our favor. Why should we make a burden for the countries by forcing them to make new institutions, when the current system is already functioning. The companies and the individuals are taking care of their property thanks to the law, and the use of the needed content is enabled trough different libraries and databases sponsored by the governments?
IP Rights motivation for creating and developing

Innovations are created by the self-interest of firms, entrepreneurs and researchers who expect to be rewarded with rents in the case of their innovation being successfully implemented in the market. Throughout history inventors were inventing and creating with the only goal to profit. It’s in the human nature to lack for fortune and driven by that they are willing to give an effort and spend time on inventing something new. But if that chance is taken away from them, do you think that the further innovations and creations will would still exist? Therefore, we can’t allow any bypassing of the copyright protection technology. IPR are the stimulus and motion for improvements and developments. Another good side of the IPR is that the creator or the owner of the copyrighted work can decide under which terms his work can be used, so it’s up to him which sum of money will be required or will money be required at all. As far there are no examples of creating something and giving it for free. And this leads us to the conclusion that nobody wants their creation to be used for free. And if that happens, they will be unmotivated for further work. When speaking of your system, the US system (which is slightly unfair because we don’t know it as well as you), it is capitalistic, a society where the profit is the main priority. In context of the analogy above, people need IPR to make profit and to achieve their main goal. When bypassing THAT right of theirs, you are also bypassing their right to take credit for something that only they are “guilty” for. As we stated in the rebuttal of your first argument, the fact that the IP rights should be preserved, doesn’t mean that students will be omitted from access to educational content. But clearly, it is not the duty of the creators to work for providing the students with their works, but a duty of the government to provide free libraries and online databases with educational content for research purposes.