Intellectual Property should not be monopolized

I sincerely hope it turns out to be a fruitful one. Since my opponent failed to post definitions, I will go on ahead and take that liberty. Definitions: Intellectual property: property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; also : an application, right, or registration relating to this. Since the resolution states: “Intellectual Property should not be monopolized” and my opponent is the author of this resolution I find it odd that he did not seem to look up the definition of “intellectual property”, or he probably would not have started this debate. R1: My opponent’s only discernable “contention” is that copyrights on intellectual property make producing similar goods more difficult. I’m having a hard time discerning what my opponent’s problem with copyrighting is. He says that’s “ companies such as Macintosh have patents on the "tablet", which makes it harder for other developers to create similar products without being sued for "stealing" the idea of that type of product. ” My response to this argument is simple; he has not shown any reasonable harm. Sure copyrights and patents prevent others, from reaping the benefits of another’s blood sweat and tears. What is the harm in this? In a capitalist society people ought to be rewarded for ingenuity and entrepreneurship. My opponent’s resolution would strip this country of it’s most valuable asset: a populace that has proper incentive to innovate. Other tablets exist, so Macintosh/Apple does not have a monopoly on the product, which makes his example irrelevant to the resolution. [1] As my opponent does not make any other assertions, and as the burden of proof rests on his shoulders, I shall now move on to my case. C1: Eliminating patents and/or copyrights would be detrimental to those working in “creative industries” This is why it is important to define key terms in any debate. My opponent likely foresaw an argument based solely on technical innovation (which I will address later) however, he failed to specify in his opening argument that he wanted technical arguments only. I will therefore prove that eliminating patents and/or copyrights has negative implications on not only the lives of individual American citizens, but also, by extension undermines the economic prosperity of the United States as a whole. SC1. Authors- my definition of intellectual property clearly states that ideas (especially profitable ones) fall under its jurisdiction. This can be considered reasonable for several reasons, I will provide just two very specific instances that clearly demonstrate why copyrights are a necessary precaution. J. K. Rowling is well-known for her best-selling series Harry Potter. She s also known for her amicable, even endearing relationship with her mega fan base. She allows fans to write “fanfiction” as long as they do not intend on profiting from her “brainchild. ” [2]. Rowling did however sue Harry Potter Lexicon because [Harry Potter Lexicon] planned on releasing an all-inclusive encyclopedia of “all things Potter” (so to speak), when Rowling herself planned on dong the exact same thing, (publishing an encyclopedia) while donating on subsequent proceeds to charity. [3] [4] Stephanie Meyer, also well known for her best-selling fantasy series “The Twilight Saga” describes herself as “extremely sad” and “unable to go on” as well as stressing that “[the copyright infringement] was a huge violation of [her] rights as an author” [5] SC2: Ridding the world of copyrights would do away with much of American entertainment. If there were no consequences for pirating movies, for example there would be no incentive for movie companies to produce high quality or big budget movies, simply because they would not make money. To rid the U. S. of it’s copyright laws the same as making pirating anything legal. In the free-for-all paradigm my opponent’s resolution seeks to create, we would see the degradation of brands that become synonymous with quality. A bag branded with “Gucci” could be made by someone down in his basement. I could go on for pages and pages on harms, but I feel that any further argumentation on my part would be an extrapolation. Nearly every company in The United States is protected by some copyright or patent. To take those away would severely affect desire for innovation. Remember that the burden of proof is on Aff, and yet he has not proven anything. He’s just made unfounded statements. Vote Neg. Sources: . http://www.dell.com... (lust one example of many) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... . http://www.mugglenet.com... . http://www.stepheniemeyer.com...