That copyright law should not extend to the internet

So, let's start with some basics - if I create some new creative work, that automatically (usually) gives me copyright. That means I'm the only one allowed to publish it. This dates back to the days when music publishers would print sheet music, and ensures only the composer had the right to sell the sheet music of their own music, because that's how they made money. These days, however, things are very different. Artists generally don't make money from selling physical copies of their products, not least because piracy is even easier nowadays, but mostly because performances, commissions and sponsorships are much more profitable. These are all ideas that were, in most artistic fields, uncommon at best when copyright was created (notwithstanding individual arts patrons who usually fund larger works through huge grants). Copyright is no longer serving its purpose on the internet, and certainly isn't ensuring artists are getting wealthy.

TL;DR:

I propose creative works first published on the internet should, by default, be considered creative-commons licensable (with attribution required), unless they are already clearly covered by an existing copyright claim (essentially, it would need to be very clearly labelled as being copyrighted). This will shift the burden of proof onto copyright holders to show their work was originally covered by copyright, rather than sites (like this one) being forced to remove anything that might be covered by copyright as soon as we get a notice (and the burden being on the poster to show it was creative commons). This is a common pattern on sites like Youtube, where videos are often taken down or demonitised for containing copyrighted content, even if there is no actual proof showing the copyright belonged to the person making the claim.  In turn, this has led to a huge "copyright troll" industry of lawyers threatening to demonitise content unless large payments are made - an industry that would disappear overnight if this model were adopted. Should there be any doubt about user-generated content, most websites already have terms and conditions of use that cover this (for example, on edeb8, it is assumed you have copyright over what you post, and you give edeb8 the right to display it).

There would be three main benefits of this model:

The resolution is affirmed.

I thank my opponent for his opening statement anyway. I would observe, first, that there is as-yet no response to my substantive argument. I outlined a model and three major substantive benefits thereof. All these points are extended.

My opponent has instead advanced his own argument based on emotion. First, note that he hasn't clearly defined the problem. Joe and Bob aren't quarreling about authorship, and even if they are, ultimately they both get fantastic music to listen to. The only issues come about where payment is concerned, and as I've noted, that's not really a thing for these kinds of scenarios in this day and age. Second, he also hasn't shown how copyright law would fix this problem (which doesn't exist). Third, he also fails to show why solving this problem (which doesn't exist) would be a good thing. That is the burden he will need to prove. Fourth, he also fails to acknowledge that my model already deals with this problem by requiring attribution by default.

His second argument is that I should tell him I don't think it's wrong for somebody to steal another person's creative work. Okay.

"I don't think it's wrong for somebody to steal another person's creative work"

I hope that's all I need to do to win that particular point. But in case you disagree anyway, I'd like to point out that music is already stolen all the time - even in the days long before the internet. There's a big difference between copyright - the right to copy a song - and the right to claim authorship of a song (aka theft). I'd also suggest that even though I primarily focused on music in my first round, copyright is also about any creative work, including the writing you're reading right now.

The resolution is affirmed.