Debate about academic piracy: We believe that it is legitimate to pirate academic articles

This lesson plan is about organizing a classroom debate. We are not — this is crucial — organizing a discussion. A debate differs from a discussion because it is structured and has clear rules:

• The debate topic is worded as a proposition that some speakers will support and some will oppose. There is no working towards a compromise; one team wins, and the other loses;
• In this version of formal debate (adjusted for classroom use), we have two participating teams (proposition and opposition);
• Debaters cannot choose which side they represent in a debate - the sides (proposition and opposition) are assigned randomly with a coin flip:
• The rules clearly specify who speaks when and for how long.

For a classroom debate, we propose the following format:

• Each team has three speakers, who will each hold a 4-minute speech;
• During the main speeches (but only after the first 30 seconds and before the last 30 seconds of the speech), the opposing team can stand up and offer a question. Every speaker must accept and answer one question from the opposing team. Alternatively, you can have a 1-2 minute time slot for questions after each speech – we recommend this option if you want to engage more students and if your students are new to public speaking and might be intimidated by interruptions;
• The students who are not delivering speeches act as debate adjudicators.

First speakers (on both sides) should set up the debate and provide the initial arguments. Setting the debate means establishing the main definitions and clearing up what the debate is about (for more information, see the lesson plan “Motion analysis”). Second speakers should be bringing in final arguments, responding to the opposing team’s arguments, and rebuilding their first speaker’s arguments. Third speakers should analyze all arguments, respond to their opponents, and rebuild their own argumentation. In other words, they should provide an overview of what happened in the debate and why their team won.

The rest of the class should serve as debate adjudicators. They should be taking notes and weighing proposition and opposition arguments. Instruct them to be objective and to evaluate only the speeches they’ve heard, putting aside their personal opinions and/or arguments and examples they would have used as debaters.

If you want to engage the students more actively, you can always adapt the proposed format to fit more students - have 6 students per team, and have each of them deliver a 2-minute speech. A separate pair of students per team can also be used for asking and answering questions. If you are curious about more classroom debate formats, we recommend you read the chapter “Debate in Classroom” in the Melita Methodological Guide.

After you form the teams, they should have time to prepare. Students who are not debating should also participate in preparing arguments.

Students are allowed to use textbooks and the internet while researching for their arguments. If your students are still struggling, we recommend you pause their group work and do a quick brainstorm as a class, making note of all the reasons to propose and oppose the motion.

To the extent possible, the students should try to build arguments on their own. If they are struggling, use any of the arguments listed below to provide them with an idea of what an argument for or against this motion could look like.

Proposition

Definitions:

Academic piracy: Academic piracy refers to the use, reproduction, or distribution of academic materials, such as research papers, articles, and books, that goes beyond the scope of legal, fair use. This can include sharing copyrighted materials without permission or selling or distributing pirated materials for profit but usually refers to accessing academic materials in a questionable way. Academic piracy can take many forms, including uploading copyrighted materials to online sharing platforms, sharing login credentials for online databases, or making copies of materials for distribution.

1st argument: Academic knowledge should be accessible to all humanity

Explanation:

a) Everyone has a right to information as a basic human right, science is unraveling the secrets of our universe, and there is no right of anyone to privatize it.

b) Most scientific research is publicly funded, removing private publishers' right to limit access.

Example:

Big private publishers contribute nothing to science; they just collect money and exploit their monopoly.

Impact:

We think this is a principal right: academic knowledge must be accessible to all.

2nd argument: Academic piracy makes the world more equal.

Explanation:

a) a big factor in inequality both on a macro and a micro level, so between countries and between individuals, is their inability or ability to access scientific information, which can help them to study, progress, etc.

b) academic piracy gives access to those who are the poorest and thus creates a fairer and better competition.

Example:

Most academic piracy is done by people in the 3rd world.

Impact:

We believe that more equality is always good, but this also improves the competition between people and organizations, making everyone better.

3rd argument: Academic piracy improves science.

Explanation:

a) Science has limited resources. This is why it is really bad if scientists cannot access each other’s materials because that means they are doing the same experiments several times because they cannot compare and share the results of their work. This leads to huge losses of efficiency in science.

Example:

The Chinese scientific community is in many regards cut off from the world -- this makes both the scientists in the rest of the world and in China less efficient.

Impact:

More scientific efficiency would greatly benefit everyone by giving us all more progress.

Opposition

1st argument: Academic piracy is morally wrong

Explanation:

a) When publishing their findings in a paper, scientists give the rights to the publisher to limit the access and charge for access. They give the rights voluntarily because they want to publish in a reputable and prestigious journal -- they make this choice.

b) It is unfair to violate the journal's right to limit access to these findings.

Example:

Imagine you ran a business publishing something and people decided to steal from you -- you would feel indignant and cheated.

Impact:

This is a principal reason in itself that stealing is bad and morally wrong.

2nd argument: Academic piracy prevents true solutions to scientific publishing.

Explanation:

a) The big publishers could easily stop academic piracy, but it is not. Why? Because they get paid by the universities of all the countries for the materials either way, so they get their money. As soon as the universities would stop paying, the publishers would sue and block the piracy websites.

b) People think they are cheating the publishers by means of academic piracy, but they are not. Because of piracy, they are less angry at publishers' greed, and they make actual discussions and solutions less likely because the system continues working and universities continue paying.

Example:

When some Swedish universities wanted to stop paying some publishers -- because their materials are accessible via piracy either way, big publishers immediately blocked access to pirated sites.

Impact:

If we truly want to stop the publisher's greed, we must stop academic piracy.

3rd argument: Journals serve an important function

Explanation:

a) Prestigious journals serve an important function because they are prestigious for a reason: they have quality reviewers and editors, they published verified data, and they have a wide global readership. This infrastructure is hard to build, and therefore they deserve their position.

Example:

Many local or smaller journals are of considerably worse quality than global big journals.

Impact:

We need good journals with good editors, this is the only way to ensure high-quality science.

The debate takes place; some students debate, the others take notes and adjudicate.

1. Who do you think won the debate and why?
2. What would you do differently?
3. Did your opinion on the topic change after watching the debate?