Copyright laws are antithetical to the principle of free expression.

Hopefully, this will be an interesting discussion for us both. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also note up front that I personally benefit, to a small degree, from our copyright system. A good part of what I do for a living involves writing, and I derive a small part of my income each year from the sale of copyrighted work. My opponent has made two basic assertions - first, the specific topic of this debate, the notion that "copyright laws are antithetical to the principle of free expression. " Further, while not really covered under the topic at hand, he claims that "by extension, {copyright laws are] unconstitutional in the US after the ratification of the bill of rights. " I intend to show that both of these assertions are seriously in error. Let's take up the second assertion first, for although it is not actually the subject of the debate, a look at the legal aspects of copyright as it pertains to the Constitution will also show how it is definitely NOT antithetical to free expression. That there is some conflict between the constituional granting, to Congress of the power to establish a copyright system (Article I, Sec. 8) and the "freedom of expression" clause of the First Amendment is undeniable, and has long been recognized. But does this make the copyright system unconstitutional? Not at all! First, it has long been recognized that the rights granted by the Constitution and its various amendments are not absolute. This has been established both through many, many court decisions, and also (and arguably more importantly in a democracy) through the application of common sense. For a very relevant example, we have the old saw about not having the right to yell "Fire! " for no reason in a crowded theatre. If one were to insist on a literal and absolute reading of the First Amendment, society could not restrict even that form of speech. But it is quite clear that there are other interests of society - and in the rights of the individuals of that society to be protected from such abuses - that must take precedence over any notion of an "absolute" right to totally free expression. Hence we have quite constituional laws prohibiting certain forms of speech, under certain conditions. You are not permitted to incite a riot, to commit libel, slander, or perjury, etc. , etc. . These are not, and should not be, considered as undue restrictions on the freedom of expression. There has to be a balance in our laws, and the Framers of our Constitution recognized this. Law is not, and never will be, as simple as a book of absolute rules. Such things are impossible in the real world. A balance between the conflicting interests of society, and even conflicting individual rights, must be struck, and we were also given a judicial system to help find that balance. So the question then becomes one of whether or not copyright law serves a higher interest of society, such that this sort of restriction of expression is justifiable. The answer here can only be a clear and resounding "yes. " Copyright law serves two interests of society that make our current system a reasonable balance. First, we are forced to face the undeniable truth that ideas, and the expressions of those ideas, have value. They are often, therefore, considerable as forms of property, and the right of individuals to own property (and the responsibility of our society to protect that right) is also constitutionally recognized. So to NOT allow for copyright would itself be a violation of the right of citizens to be secure in their property, and to exercise the rights of ownership regarding that property. That the property in question is intangible makes no difference; it has value, it may be bought and sold, and persons may derive income from its production. And this fact also now comes into play when we consider the question of whether or not copyright law is "antithetical to free expression. " In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. The Supreme Court itself, in a decision in the 1985 case of Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, noted that: "It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be an engine of free expression" In other words, the principle of copyright is, rather than being a hindrance to free expression, actually an encouragement of it. It is very clear that a writer sees a financial incentive in writing, but only as long as there is a paying market for his or her work. If that work, which represents a considerable effort on the part of the writer (I myself have put a solid six months' worth of research and writing into a book), could be freely copied by anyone, where would the incentive to create it come from in the first place? And for that matter - are the restrictions put in place by copyright law really unreasonable restrictions of free expression? Not at all - they merely state that others cannot distribute another's work as their own, or without fair and reasonable compensation to the originator of that work. There is no absolute restriction against ANY use of copyrighted material - simply that the permission of the originator of the material be obtained, and that that person be compensated. My writing is just that: mine. Why should I be expected to permit others to pass it off as their work, or to allow them to gain from my labor without my permission? If they wish to express their own ideas, opinions, thoughts, and so forth, they are still clearly free to do so - they simply have to do it in their own words. They need to put forth the same sort of effort to make their expression clear that I have done, but they ARE free to make that effort. And when they have, they too will benefit from the protection of the copyright laws that will protect their expressions from misuse.