Debate Template

First 5 min.:

Restate question: People should be allowed to remix music if they don't sell it and make a profit. If they do sell it they should get the artists permission.

Point 1: Artists made music for people to enjoy. If someone remixes a song and people like it, the people who made the CD should not complain

Point 2: Remixing should be legal because it allows other people to bring out their creativity which can help inspire magnificent minds is this country and this world

Point 3: Since the re-mixer bought the CD, they should get to do whatever they want with it

ARE statements:

If someone remixes a songs and people like it, the people who made the song should not complain because artists make music for people to enjoy. For example, the 3 DJ's who remixed the Green Day CD, didn't sell it, and Green Day came out and said that they loved that they did that. So they were happy that 3 DJ's found a way that more people could enjoy their music.

Point 4: Building ideas off of other people.

Point 5: Same passions

Second 5 min.:

Answer all of other people's statement.

If you don't like a remix, than just don't listen to it.

Everyday the hits are changing. Fame will not just go away because of remixes.

They are probably going to say this: Under copyright and related rights it is not legal to copy, adapt, translate, perform, or broadcast a protected work or recording, or put it on the Internet, unless a specific exception exists in the copyright law of your country, or unless you have permission from all of the relevant owners of rights.

We should say ( I don't know if this is good) : How would you feel if you didn't like a song but you knew how it could sound better. We think that the copyright rules should be changed because the music os for the people, not the buisinesses benefit. In the article we read it even said that Green Day was very pleased to see that somebody made this remix. They are the creators of the music, I think they should decide, and I think they would go with the ways that people want.

2 min.

Restate points. Summarize all ideas.

Things to Include also:

Copyright usually protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — in US jurisprudence this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. For example, if a writer has a general concept or idea for a television program, the law of copyright does not prohibit other writers from copying that general idea. However, if the writer develops the idea so that it constitutes a detailed storyline or plot, then that may be protected by copyright, notwithstanding that it is "idea" rather than "expression". Similarly, the translation of a literary work will constitute an infringement of copyright, notwithstanding that no element of the "expression" is directly copied.

Another example could be if a book is written describing a new way to organize books in a library, a copyright does not prohibit a reader from freely using and describing that concept to others; it is only the particular expression of that process as originally described that is covered by copyright. One might be able to obtain a patent for the method, but that is a different area of law. Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves. In some jurisdictions the contents of databases are expressly covered by statute.

Use that statement IN YOUR OWN WORDS, bitte.