Computer Ethics, Fall 2009

Room LT-508
7:00-9:30 Thursdays

Goals:
Example: is file-sharing stealing, if nobody lost anything?

Joel Tenenbaum case: Joel Tenenbaum was caught downloading files by the RIAA, and was offered their past settlement offer, typically about $5000. He chose to fight. He got Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson to take his case pro bono; Nesson also involved his law-school class. They put up a vigorous and spirited defense.

They lost.

When it came time to assess damages (July 31, 2009), the jury decided $22,500 per track was fair, for a total of $675,000. Oops.

Tenenbaum's case was the second RIAA case to go to trial. Jammie Thomas-Rasset was first; in her first case the verdict was $222,000. Thomas-Rasset got a new trial; the second verdict was $1,920,000.

Moral: think hard about settling early.

See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars. and the links at the end to earlier articles.

Overview of some issues:

        copyright (ch 4)
            file sharing
            whether there is such a thing as "intellectual property"
            DMCA: Digital Millenium Copyright Act
            
        privacy (ch 2)
                from employers
                from government
                        security
                        matching / fraud prevention
                        patriot acts
                from marketers
                        personal profiles
                        rfid
                from copyright holders (RIAA lawsuits, ISP actions)
                legal records
                per-use content management
                
        software patents
                open source
                
        software licensing
            legal issues regarding "click" contracts
            trusting your software
        speech
                encryption
                dmca
                software
                anonymity
                libel
                hoaxes
                
        trust and the web
                e-commerce
                information reliability
                security: phishing, certificates, etc
                trusting your software
                        spyware
                voting & democracy
                hacking
                        kutztown 13
                        randall schwartz
                        
        encryption
                
        antitrust issues
                open source
                
        professional issues
            responsibilities and liabilities
                talking to your supervisor
         

Week 1 Readings

Read all of chapter 1, esp
    cellphone case-study in 1.2.2
    ATM case study in 1.3
    What is ethics? 1.4
    Copyright: 4.1
1.3: ATMs as a case study of change brought by technology
1.4: ethical theories
    there are two great (classes of) ethical theories:
    1. Deontological: rules-based
    2. Utilitarian: consequences-based
    3. Relativism: superficially appealing, but ultimately unsatisfactory

Midterm, final exam, 3-4 papers

Plagiarism rules: be sure ALL quotations are marked as such, and also cited.

When you write, be sure you organize your points clearly and address the question. Grammar and style count for MUCH less!


§1.3.1: Evaluation of Automatic Teller Machine side-effects
Walter Wriston was CEO of CitiBank in the 1970's when ATMs were then widely deployed in New York City. Wriston was at one point credited with the realization that many if not most New Yorkers actually preferred ATMs to using human tellers; they did not particularly like that form of human contact. [source: newspaper article I read long ago]


§1.3.2: "Themes"

Why study computer ethics?

1. Look at old problems in new setting. Do old analogies apply? Classic case: copyright. Note that in some sense computing provides a testbed for classical ethics: computing supplies many examples of classical ethical dilemmas in a new context.

2. New rules required as we adapt to new technology. Examples:
3. Varied sources of solutions to new problems. Example: cell phone case study, Section 1.2. Cell phones led to:
4. Global scope of the Internet: good and bad
    jurisdictional chaos: if you buy online, where do you file the lawsuit?
    it is harder to be isolated (this was meant as a "good" at the time I wrote it; now I'm less sure)
    very wide, low-cost distribution of knowledge
    
5. Tradeoffs
    between privacy and convenience. True of computers, true of door locks.
    


Ethics
    
Are we going to figure out right and wrong here? No. But we will figure out how to:

Law

What are laws for?
For the last one, note that the goal is to encourage investment. Possibly at the expense of justice!

CRIMINAL v CIVIL law

What the rules are:
    contracts
    torts (non-contractual obligations)
    criminal law
legal safeguards for you or your organization
    economic consequences of established rules
    the "rule of law"
how the law is actually being interpreted

Law and the courts
    Federal:
            Supreme court
            Circuit courts
            District courts

    State courts:
       Note the New York State "Supreme" courts are the ones to hear parking infractions.
    
Judges write OPINIONS, which carry significant weight with other judges.


[[
    Summary of issues regarding file sharing
    discussion of property, and "intellectual property", natural law, the Constitution
    limitations on copyright
    biases in the term "intellectual property"
    theft? napster defense
    US Copyright law; categories; fair use
    importance to business & arts
]]


David Post (Temple Univ Law School) [Sometime around 2000?]
    If seven million people are stealing, they're not stealing.

Questions about what you download (from worst to better)
  1. Is it ok to download music files?
  2. Is it ok to listen to the radio?
  3. Is it ok to play the radio at a party?
  4. Is it ok to record off the radio? What about TV?
  5. What about downloading lyrics?
  6. What if I already own the CD? (either lyrics or entire tracks)
Most people would probably be ok with all but #1 here. Note that #3 might be construed as illegal if the party were in any way not a "private home affair". One court did rule against #6.


Why isn't the illegal copying of books (eg through photocopying) a major issue?

Why wasn't the illegal production of audio cassette tapes (from LPs, radio broadcasts, and live concerts) a major issue?


Questions about what you share (from better to worse):
  1. Is it ok to listen to a friend's CD?
  2. Is it ok to give a copy of a track to a friend?
  3. Is it ok to give a copy of an entire CD to a friend?
  4. Is it ok to let your friend pay you for the blank disk?
  5. Is it ok if you just met your friend 30 seconds ago, for the sole purpose of selling the cd, and the price also includes a nominal copying charge?
Many people have trouble with #3, though it somewhat depends on who you mean by "friend" (cf #5).

One classic slippery-slope argument is the Bart & Fat Tony d'Amico scene in Simpsons 8F03, written by John Swartzwelder.

 At work, Fat Tony gives Bart a present, in gratitude for his help with the distribution of smuggled cigarettes.
   
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family.  Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread?  They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away.  Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.




Conflict: if music downloads are seen as being like radio, they're clearly ok.
If they're seen as in-lieu-of-CD-purchase, they're more like theft.

Is downloading the same as theft? DISCUSSION
Yes: artists don't get the money they would otherwise get
No:  nobody loses anything

Software-copying model: people who illegally copy software often would never buy it; they're just "collecting". No sale is lost in these cases.

Lost sales: if you build a better mousetrap, my mousetrap business may lose sales. Lost sales -- or other harm -- is NOT necessarily wrong!!

"Intellectual Property"


What is the LEGAL basis for music protection? Copyright.

Copyright is sometimes referred to as a form of "Intellectual Property" (along with patent rights and some trademark and trade-secret rights). Is there such a thing as "Intellectual Property"?

     Intellectual property is the work-product of the human mind.  [Halbert & Ingulli, CyberEthics, 2004]
        
How about
        
        IDEAS are the work-product of the human mind
        
Can ideas (including music) be PROPERTY?

What is property? (Legal and social definitions)

"the right of use, control, and disposition" (topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/real_property)
the "expectation ... of being able to draw such or such an advantage from the thing" in question [Jeremy Bentham, quoted in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law]
        
        "Real" property (land & buildings; ie Real Estate)
        Personal property, also known as "chattels"
        Intellectual property
        
Traditionally, "real property" is considered much more tangible. Nobody can walk off with it, for example. However, easements are
a form of intangible real property right.

Other abstract property:
        
Natural law notion: you have a right to things you have created with your own labor (eg things you have made). You have a right to things you have earned.

Classic proponent: John Locke 1632-1704 (mentioned in Baase p 33)

The natural right to real property (land & buildings) is slightly hazier in theory, but much more solid in practice. The frontier version of the theory was that you have the right to the land you have settled, developed, and farmed; the practice is that you have the right to use your land as you see fit (subject to zoning, water, and environmental laws).

The big question: Do we have natural rights to IDEAS?

Tradition goes both ways. Ideas meet the Lockian test of things created with your own effort, BUT many ideas have also traditionally been regarded as in the "public domain".

Alternative to natural rights is sometimes called "legal rights" or "social rights": rights assigned by law for a social goal.

Read: Chapter 4, sections 1-3 (if we get here)
    4.1: intro
    4.2: law, major cases
    4.3: DRM, DMCA, arguments about copying



United States Constitution

US Constitution states (the "copyright clause") (italics added by me)

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
       
...

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

...
       
What is "limited"?

More deeply, what does this say about the nature of our "right" to our works and inventions? It seems clear here that the writers of the constituton did NOT see this as a natural right. The justification for the right is because it promotes a societal goal, the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

How can something be property, if it goes away? People ask this about copyright in the other direction, quite seriously, as if it should be obvious that copyright should be perpetual.

The word "property" carries all sorts of implications to the non-lawyer. But how can a music track be property if you can download the song and I still have everything I had before?

Under the law, the notion of "intellectual property" makes perfect sense; there are lots of limited and/or intangible forms of property. But mostly nobody but lawyers is familiar with these. To most people, the word "property" suggests something that is MINE, like the $5 bill in my wallet (which, alas, I spent).

Property suggests certain rights:

What about this "limited-time" property?

The property-rights view suggests that the limited-time model is a huge concession.

By comparison, the intellectual-commons view suggests that any rights to the creator are a consession.
   
Using the term "intellecual property" to describe ideas introduces BIASES.

What about "FAIR USE"? This is the notion that some copying is legitimate without any obligation to the creator. The original notion was to allow excerpting for quotes and reviews. The use should be relatively noncommercial (educational was best), and should not diminish the market for the original. We'll go into details later; the important case to be familiar with is the SCOTUS Sony v Universal Studios, the "Betamax" case, in which the court ruled 5-4 that VCR recording for the purpose of time-shifting did constitute fair use.

Summary: Intellectual Property is a legitimate concept.
It is well accepted by lawyers.
However, lawyers also automatically understand that it's different from real or personal property.

=======================================================================
=======================================================================

    normative ethics v descriptive ethics
    deontology v consequentialism
    relativism
   
    Application of this to music and movie file sharing.
   
    Copyright law
   
================================================================

descriptive ethics: what do people actually do
    compare sociology, etc
normative ethics, or PREscriptive ethics: what SHOULD we do?

    -- "if seven million people are stealing, they aren't stealing"
    -- is it ok to download music?

======================================================================
======================================================================