Computer Ethics, Summer 2010
Week 1, Day 2
Corboy Law Room 323
Property
US Constitution
IP and the free market
Music industry arguments: for musicians / for us
Ethical theory: deontological / utilitarian
Michael Eisner's June 2000 statement to Congress (edited, from
Halbert & Ingulli 2004). See also below.
"Intellectual Property"
[Why am I using quotation marks here?]
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)
Three classes of property:
- "Real" property (land & buildings; ie Real Estate)
- Personal property, also known as "chattels"
- Intellectual property
Note that "intellectual property" can certainly meet Bentham's
standard of "expectation... of being able to draw .. an advantage".
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.
Intellectual property is a form of abstract property. Here are some other forms of abstract property:
- mineral rights (especially unexercised)
- options to buy a thing at a future date for a set price (options)
- 200 bushels of corn delivered in November 2011 (futures)
- utility easement
- construction "air" rights
- right to fly over certain areas
- software license (accepted at face value!)
Natural law notion of property: 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".
One alternative to natural rights is sometimes referred to as
"legal rights" or "social rights": rights are assigned by law for a
social goal.
Another alternative is the idea of intellectual commons: that ideas are held in common for the benefit of everyone, and that no one has an individual right to an idea.
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:
- right to determine all forms of use
- right to legal enforcement
- right to decide how to dispose of property: sell, buy, lease, inherit
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.
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?
Intellectual Property and the Free Market
In a completely free market, I would sell my goods (chickens, say) for
whatever I could get, and buy other things. Could shareable mp3 files
exist in such a market? Once I sold one, the buyer could resell for
next to nothing (or literally nothing). The supply, in classical terms,
would be infinite, leading to a price of zero. Exactly as is happening in the real world.
This point is related to Stewart Brand's famous aphorism, "information wants to be free". The point isn't that information should be free, it's that, in the high-tech world, it ineluctably will be free, absent a strong regulatory system.
Nor is the point that newspapers and magazines should place their
content online without charging for access; the second part of Brand's
aphorism is "information also wants to be expensive"; that is, it is
expensive to obtain and produce.
Here are some concepts for discussion; the italicized claims are meant as points for debate.
1. Any free market requires some sort
of legal system to keep people from stealing my chickens rather than
paying. Copyright is no different.
Is this true? If the legal system ensured only that all transactions
were voluntary, we would still have a music price of zero. There is a big difference between forbidding involuntary transactions (that is, physical theft), and regulating voluntary ones. More
generally, we could
enforce any buyer or seller terms on the immediate exchange of every
transaction, and still have a music price of zero. If the seller
demanded that a buyer agree to a long-term license restriction, that would be beyond the scope of the immediate exchange.
[Note, while we are on the topic, that this is a good example of the importance of the legal groundrules on economic activity.]
Bottom line: debate point 1 is problematic. Copyright is different.
2. This argument shows that intellectual property can exist only in a regulated economy;
that is, intellectual property only exists once the market rules are
defined. Another example is patent terms: the value of a patent only
exists once the length of time the patent lasts is established.
The argument, in other words, is that IP can exist only to the extent our markets have been
"socialized" (ok, that is inflammatory) or at least "regulated" (for
true Chicago-school economists, there is no difference). However,
aren't all real markets subject to some degree of regulation? And
aren't contemporary markets subject to a considerable degree of regulation?
Bottom line: debate point 2 is probably correct, but don't read too much into it.
3. Real markets are regulated in all kinds of ways, so this is not a meaningful distinction (compare with #2)
Intellectual Property can only exist once the market is
created; physical property exists beforehand and Locke argued that
physical property rights
exist beforehand. But why should that be a meaningful distinction? Do
natural rights matter? (It is certainly true that real markets are
subject to many regulations, but the question is whether that is
relevant to the alleged distinction between Intellectual and Lockean
property.)
Bottom line: debate point 3 is reasonable, but don't underestimate the difference here.
4. The Tragedy of the Commons dooms IP.
That is, copyright is in our mutual long-term interest. But as meaningful
enforcement is difficult, we have to each agree to abide by copyright law. At first we might each abide by our
agreement, in the interests of maintaining the music economy. But it is
always in our short-term best interest to ignore our promise and
download privately; this makes the music industry like a "commons":
supported by individual contributions (the agreement not to share
files) but in each individual's best interest to "cheat". In all other
situations studied, the commons are doomed.
Bottom line: time will tell on this one.
The Napster Defense
Napster was the original music-sharing website. Their legal defense was
that they did no actual copying; they merely connected a user who
wanted a song with a user who had it in their online library. In that
sense, they were "only a search engine".
What do you think of that?
Napster eventually lost their case, but not quickly; they were then
replaced by multiple different music-sharing services: kazaa, morpheus,
limewire, gnutella, ....
The Music Industry
What do we owe the music industry? For many people, it matters whether
we're talking about individual musicians, or about recording-company
executives. Ignore that for now; assume if necessary that most of the
money goes to musicians.
Some arguments in favor of file-sharing:
- No one loses anything they had before
- Music is part of our common culture that we all share
- The social costs of cracking down on file-sharing are dire
What are some arguments in favor of music-industry rights? Ultimately, they usually are in one of two categories:
- The music people have a right to profit from their work
- If file-sharing takes over, the music industry goes away, and we'll have less to listen to
Which of these is the more important? Is it all about our obligations to musicians, or about our own future self-interest?
What would happen to music if all file-sharing were free? One idea is that the "Napster model" would emerge: musicians would get paid for performances, but recordings would all be free.
Could this model support enough musicians that there would still be new music to listen to?
Who is copyright for?
Here's another take on the two options above:
- Musicians have a fundamental right to profit from their work
and creativity, and copyrights enable this right. Music copyrights are
about protecting a basic form of ownership to which musicians are
entitled.
- Music copyrights are there simply as a pragmatic gesture to
encourage musicians, so there will continue to be music for all of us
to enjoy. Music copyrights are about our future self-interest.
Despite the apparently clear distinction between fundamental duty and
pragmatism here, it can be hard to tell.
It might help to think of how we would feel if some relatively minor
component of music copyright -- sheet-music sales, for example, or the
playing of prerecorded music at non-profit events -- were to be deleted
from copyright coverage. Such an action would surely not endanger the
music industry as a whole, so if we object, it is more likely that we
feel musicians are entitled to
the fruits of their labor.
DEscriptive ethics: what do people actually do
compare sociology, etc
Normative ethics, or PREscriptive ethics:
what should we do? (sometimes
the phrase PROscriptive ethics is used to describe what we should not do).
-- "if seven million people are stealing, they aren't stealing"
-- is it ok to download music?
There is also the issue of what we should hold wrong in others. At the
severest level, this leads to some actions being illegal. At a more
moderate level, there are many actions that we find unacceptable in
others, but our response is limited to publicizing the action or
ostracism.
The literature on ethics is filled with what are sometimes called
"ethical paradoxes":
The Trolley Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)
A trolley
is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who
have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which
will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately,
there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?
The Cave Problem
A large person is stuck in the mouth of
a cave. His five smaller companions are behind him, inside the cave.
The tide is coming in, and will shortly drown them all. The stuck
person could be removed if he were killed.
Some more (many superficial) examples can be found at http://www.quose.com.
The Trolley and Cave problems seem grimly remote from ordinary
experience.
File-sharing, however, is not, hence makes a more everyday example.
Ethical theory
(often inseparable from Political & Justice theories)
Deontological ethics: (deon
= duty)
Based on the enumeration of fundamental, universal principles.
Immanuel Kant [1724-1804]
Kant's categorical imperative:
all our principles should be Universal;
that is, if it's ok for us, personally, then it must be ok for
everyone. Also, whatever it is must be ok in all contexts, not just
selecively (that is, rules apply universally to people and universally
to acts). We are to choose ethical principles based on this idea of
universality.
This is
close to, but not the same as, the Golden Rule: "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you [Matthew 7:12]"
[NB: is the Bible in the public domain?]; outcome might be the same,
but the Golden Rule doesn't have the explicit notion of universality.
Kant also said that people should not be treated as means to other
goals; they should be the "endpoints" of moral action. Kant also
famously claimed the two principles (universal and non-means) were THE
SAME.
Kant is often regarded as a Moral Absolutist, a stronger position than
deontology necessarily requires.
WD Ross [1877-1971]:
more modern deontologist
consequentialism is wrong; Ross identified "seven duties" we have to
each other:
- fidelity [not lying, keeping promises]
- reparation [making up for accidental
harm to others]
- gratitude
- non-injury [do no intentional
harm others; includes harming their happiness]
- justice [or prevention of harm by others?];
- beneficence [do good to others. How much good?]
- self-improvement [perhaps "taking care of oneself"]
Is this list complete?
But perhaps the biggest problem for deontologists is what do we do when
rules conflict? Ross had a theory for handling this, though it is not clear how effective it was.
Abortion: duty to mother v duty to fetus
This would be the issue
facing someone trying to use
ethics to decide whether to support or oppose a law banning abortion.
Copyright: duty to copyright-holder v duty to society
But the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of society are
largely not in conflict!
What about one's personal duty,
when faced with the choice of downloading music?
Consequentialist ethics
Jeremy Bentham 1749-1832 & John Stuart Mill [1806-1873]:
Consequentialism
(Utilitarianism):
the good is that which brings
benefit to the people (greatest good for greatest number). This is also
sometimes referred to as the "greatest-happiness principle". Another
way to look at it is that it calls us to weigh benefits against harms.
Bentham's original formulation called for maximizing "pleasure" and
minimizing "pain", for society as a whole.
[Bentham apparently believed it was not ok to HARM a minority to benefit
the majority, though this has always been an issue
with Consequentialism. One approach to this problem is to weigh HARM
much more heavily than BENEFIT, but what if the HARM is just to one
person? More on that below.]
Bentham developed an entire legal code based on his theories.
Bentham's version had a problem with justice: is it ok to take the
factory from the owner? (That scenario remains a central obstacle for
consequentialism.)
Mill wrote a book, Utilitarianism.
He was much less flat-consequentialist than Bentham. Bentham thought
all forms of pleasure were comparable; Mill felt some were "better"
than others. Mill also recast the idea as maximizing happiness rather than "pleasure".
Social Contract; Locke,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
We make rules to move from the State of Nature to Civilization. That
is, we agree to social/ethical rules due to their CONSEQUENCES, because
we WANT those consequences.
Law and the Social Contract
Ethics and the Social Contract: Ethics are in our long-term self-interest? (Under the
social contract)
The idea is that if we lie, or cheat or steal, then eventually our
reputation will precede us, and we will end up losing.
Problem: this theory works better for some scenarios than others.
John Rawls [1921-2002]: In
negotiating the Social Contract, everyone must be placed behind the
VEIL OF IGNORANCE, not knowing whether they would be strong or weak,
rich or poor, healthy or sick. (This is often interpreted as "decide on
society before you were born") They would then choose what world they
wanted to live in. What ethical & legal rules do you want in place?
[Usually thought of as a theory of justice, not ethics, but these are
actually pretty closely related.]
How do you think Rawls would vote on health-care reform?
How do you think Rawls would choose between capitalism and socialism?
More on consequentialism
zero-sum consequentialism: The
idea is that, notionally, we score everyone's benefit or damage
numerically, and add them all up. The foremost problem with this
approach is that it accepts solutions in which one person suffers
greatly, but which produces a modest rise in the fortunes of everyone
else. Ursula LeGuin wrote a short science-fiction story on this theme:
"the ones who walk away from Omelas." This is also a theme of William
James in his essay The Moral
Philosopher and the Moral Life.
Look up "omelas" on Wikipedia to find James' quote and a link to the
full essay; the quote itself follows.
Or if the hypothesis were offered us of
a world in which Messrs. Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's utopias
should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one
simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things
should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and
independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately
feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness
so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when
deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain? - William James
min/max consequentialism:
goal is to choose actions that minimize
the harm to those affected most
(to minimize the worst case, ie to minimize the maximum). Example:
taxes; everyone pays a share and social progress is thereby funded.
disinterested-person
consequentialism:
To decide for or against a rule using consequentialist reasoning, you
must be a disinterested party: you must NOT stand to gain personally in
any significant way. How does this shift our perspective in the
copyright debate?
act consequentialism:
consider consequences of each individual act separately. Some lies may
thus be
permissible while others may not be. The same would apply to music
downloading: music from some bands might be fair game. But how do you
decide?
rule consequentialism: use
consequences of hypothetical actions to formulate broad rules. For
example, we ask if we are better off tolerating lying or not; we might
then arrive at the broad conclusion that lying is not helpful to
society, and we would apply it in every case. Rule consequentialism
generally fares better under critical analysis than act
consequentialism, but there is a difficulty with how broadly the rules
should be interpreted. Is your rule that "lying is always wrong"? Or is
it that "lying when someone will be hurt is wrong"? Or "lying is wrong
even if no one is hurt, if by lying I gain something I would not
otherwise receive"??