Computer Ethics Paper 1

Due: Friday, Sept 20

You are to pick one of the topics below. Both topics relate to the impact of copyright on what might be seen as otherwise legitimate activity. In both topics, numerous questions are posed. These are included only as suggestions, to help you get started. You do not have to answer them all!

After you submit this, I will comment on your paper and you will be asked to submit a rewritten version incorporating at least some of my suggestions, and also other improvements you think of.

Topic option 1: Copyright Lawsuits

If a copyright-content owner wants to sue you for infringement, they find your IP address (eg as part of a torrent swarm) and then ask your ISP for your name. How easy should it be for them to get it?

There have been proposals to make this a simple request; in fact, part of the DMCA was interpreted that way until a court ruled differently. Currently the process is that the content holder has to file a lawsuit and then a subpoena, which the ISP can either comply with or move to quash. Usually they comply. To make the process cost-effective for the content holder, usually the lawsuit lists dozens or thousands of IP addresses, for which the various infringements are completely unrelated; one legal theory is that the subjects of one lawsuit must in fact have a relationship.

If your ISP moves to quash the subpoena, they will probably expect you to pay the legal costs. At this point those costs might not be large, but some legal chicanery is necessary so you can be represented in the case anonymously.

All this is part of how we regulate the Internet so as to encourage compliance with copyright laws. These kinds of laws (SOPA and PIPA were good examples here) often relate to the conflict between the rights of content owners and the rights of ordinary users.

As to this particular conflict, here are some options:

Can an IP address really be equated with a person's identity? What sort of proof should someone have to supply? Would your preferred mechanism make the RIAA lawsuits harder or easier? Might it make them cheaper?

Be aware that there are others also interested in getting your name from your IP address. For example, if you post something anonymously (typically sites allowing that do log IP addresses), someone might want to find out who you really are.

In constructing your paper, you are likely going to consider some specific proposals, and then argue either that they are reasonable, or that they are not.


Topic option 2: Music Sampling

Sampling involves taking snippets of someone else's recorded work, and reusing them in your own work, possibly with some sort of electronic modification. It can involve words, chords, notes, melody, drums, rhythm, textures, other background, or whatever, and can be done in varying lengths. More information on sampling can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music); a large database of examples is at http://www.whosampled.com.

Is sampling a legitimate way of creating new music? Or, if permission is not obtained, is it simply copyright infringement? In your paper you are to address the following:
These two are related in the sense that Fair Use can be seen as an ethical use of copyrighted material, though not everyone agrees with this. Arguably, in fact, ethical use of copyrighted material may be more similar to de minimis use.

Music sampling takes many forms, but for the purposes of this paper assume that the samples are of modest length (2-10 seconds). Sometimes an entire performance is "sampled", as part of a "remix", but that is a separate case entirely. Assume the sampling is taken from published recordings; ie the samples are not recreated in the studio.

In 1991, in Grand Upright Music v Warner, a district court ruled that clearly recognizable sampling constituted infringement. In the case Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films, the 6th Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that use without permission of a 2-second chord from a song by the Funkadelics constituted infringement. More specifically, they ruled that the de minimus defense (ie that the sample was "too small to matter") did not apply. However, the court left open the possibility of a Fair Use defense. (The court left this open because the defense did not raise the Fair Use argument at trial.) The court wrote "Get a license or do not sample.... We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." Is that true? Some observers thought the ruling was strongly influenced by the goal of legal convenience: a flat ban on sampling without permission would eliminate innumerable cases as to just what sampling was allowed.

The the industry line here is that any use of copyrighted material requires permission; this gives the rights-holder the opportunity to set a fee limited only by the law of supply and demand. Fair Use is the one exception to this. While clearly there is no effect whatsoever of modest-length sampling on the market for the original, there might be (and in fact is) a "secondary" market for sampling rights that is affected. The copyright law itself only refers (§107(4)) to "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", without making it clear whether the market for the entire work is meant.

Here are a few ethical issues you might wish to consider. When using sampling, what exactly is your obligation to the original artist? Must the sample be some form of homage? Is it simply a matter of acknowledging credit for the "homage"? Can the credit be implicit, or must the original artist's name be spelled out? What if the sampling is not about "homage" at all (as in the Schnauss v Guns 'n Roses case)? Are artists really entitled to royalties when their work is sampled? Is making money from someone else's work without compensation ever permissible?

The basic Fair Use argument is that sampling is small and has no effect on the market for the original work. If you do not accept this argument entirely, what conditions might be necessary for Fair Use to apply? Must there be some sort of "transformative" use? Does electronic transformation count? Is sampling fundamentally a "productive" use, ie use that is associated with some benefit to society? Or is it a "consumptive", or even parasitic, use? Must the sample be recognizable? Not recognizable? When considering the effect on the market, should the secondary market for sampling rights count, or just the market for the original work?

When making Fair Use arguments, make clear your position on how you balance creators' rights with rights of the public. In general, if you are in favor of sampling, you should respond to those who would say that it is unfair to the original musicians. Similarly, if you are against sampling, you should respond to the basic Fair Use argument above. In addressing the ethical components, make it clear whether you are arguing from a utilitarian perspective (what is best for all musicians, or all people), or a deontological one (what duty do musicians (or people) owe one another).

At least some musicians believe that Fair Use does not apply, and so permission must be secured, and so the original artist may dictate any price. However, this stands in sharp contrast to many other understandings of Fair Use.


Your paper will be graded primarily on organization (that is, how you lay out your sequence of paragraphs), focus (that is, whether you stick to the topic), and the nature and completeness of your arguments.

It is essential that all material from other sources be enclosed in quotation marks (or set off as a block quote), and preferably with a citation to the original source as well.

Expected length: 3-5 pages (1000+ words)