Computer Ethics, Summer 2012
Corboy Law 602; Tuesdays & Thursdays, 6:00-9:00
Week 1, Class 1
Goals:
- understanding traditional ethical theories in the context of
computing technology
- understanding legal theories of computing & information
- understanding some of the social consequences of computing
technology
Example: is file-sharing stealing, if
nobody lost anything?
- Should we still use the word "stealing"
- Is it as bad as physical theft?
Overview of some issues:
- copyright (ch 4)
- whether there is such a thing as "intellectual property"
- DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- privacy (ch 2)
- matching / fraud prevention
- from copyright holders (RIAA lawsuits, ISP actions)
- per-use content management
- software patents
- what is the purpose
of software patents? To enforce ownership rights, or to improve
technology?
- software licensing
- legal issues regarding "click" contracts
- speech
- trust and the web
- security: phishing, certificates, etc
- antitrust issues
- professional issues
- responsibilities and liabilities
- talking to your supervisor
Week 1 Readings
Read all of chapter 1 and the first three sections of chapter 4,
especially:
cellphone case-study in 1.2.2
ATM case study of change brought by technology in
1.3.1
What is ethics? 1.4.1
What is intellectual property?: §4.1.1
Michael Eisner's June 2000 statement to Congress (edited, from
Halbert & Ingulli 2004).
1.4.2: ethical theories
There are two great (classes of) ethical theories:
1. Deontological: rules-based; we have fundamental
duties we owe others
2. Utilitarian: consequences-based; we establish
moral rules for their social utility
3. Relativism: superficially appealing, but
ultimately unsatisfactory
Midterm, final exam, 3 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
- bank-teller unemployment
- alienation (no human contact at the bank)
- electronic trail
- crime (robberies at ATMs)
- errors -- what if the wrong amount is dispensed?
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]
Furthermore, ATMs are available when it's convenient for you; many banks still have very
limited late hours.
As for unemployment, Baase has data that tell a different story:
1983 480,000
1993 301,000 ( this
drop was due in part to ATMs)
2006 600,000 Wow!
As for the electronic trail, that exists equally for teller
transactions. If you live in a small town, the ATM is likely to offer greater privacy.
One proposal for addressing ATM crime is to give patrons a "duress
PIN", eg their regular PIN backwards. The main reason this has never
been implemented is that there appears to be little need for it.
§1.3.2: "Themes"
Why study computer ethics?
1. An opportunity to 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:
- netiquette
- facebook stalking
- Privacy rules and online information collected by others
- Privacy rules and what we can be required to give up in order to
use Facebook
- responsibility for libel (should ISPs be accountable?)
- protecting children from inappropriate material
3. Varied sources of solutions to new problems. Example: cell phone
case study, Section 1.2. Cell phones led to:
- more outdoor risk-taking
- talking while driving
- texting while driving
- courtesy & rudeness
- cameras, lack of awareness of them, and privacy
- status-symbol division
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)
- ironically, it is also easier to be isolated, in the sense that all your world information may come from fellow wingnuts.
- very wide, low-cost distribution of knowledge
5. Tradeoffs
between privacy and convenience. True of computers,
true of door locks.
Computers are a form of technology.
Why do we talk about "computer ethics" but not "automobile ethics" or
"aircraft ethics"? (Note that we do
talk about medical ethics and biotechnology ethics.)
Ethics
- personal actions
- business actions
- imposing constraints on others, through laws & mores
Some people like to distinguish between ethics and morals by saying
morals are what we do; ethics
is the study of morality, or
how we reason about what we
do.
Descriptive ethics: what do
people actually do
compare sociology, etc
Normative ethics, or
PREscriptive ethics: what SHOULD we do?
Are we going to figure out right and wrong here? No. But we will figure out how to:
- analyze problems
- identify stakeholders
- understand both sides of the issue
- identify ethical reasoning & principles involved:
deontological theories ("deon" = duty) versus consequentialism
Law
What are laws for?
- justice
- civil order
- enforcement of societal norms
- results of (usually corporate) lobbying
- consistent basis for economic activity
For the last one, note that the goal is to encourage investment. Possibly at the expense
of justice! (Think about that one; is that a bad thing?)
(Some people have argued that software patent
law fails to provide a "consistent basis for economic activity", in
that patent lawsuits are unpredictable to an unusual degree. Other
people disagree.)
Sometimes lobbying isn't driven by money. Consider the controversial Illinois
anti-eavesdropping law, which according to a Chicago Reader article at http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chris-drew-art-peddling-law-arrest-illinois-eavesdropping-act-aclu/Content?oid=2448923
may have been intended to ban the recording of police:
And thanks to a 1994 amendment that
makes it nearly unique in the nation, [the eavedropping law] doesn't
distinguish between public and private conversations....
Part of a 1994 omnibus crime bill sponsored by former Chicago police
detective Wally Dudycz, then a northwest side state senator, the
amendment was a pointed response to a 1986 case (People v. Beardsley)
in which the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that what a cop says during a
traffic stop isn't private and therefore can be recorded for use as
evidence.
The Seventh Circuit has ruled (May 9, 2012) that the law "likely
violates" the First Amendment, and has ordered Cook County to stop
enforcing it. See here.
Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, who has spoken in defense
of the law, was apparently not on the panel that issued the ruling. The
case continues.
CRIMINAL v CIVIL law
What the rules are:
contracts
torts (non-contractual obligations)
criminal law
What is "illegal"? Are copyright violations "illegal"? Usually,
something is "illegal" if it involves a violation of criminal
law. Defamation (libel/slander), for example, is seldom referred to as
"illegal", despite the potential legal consequences. ("illegal" =
expressly against the law, "unlawful" = not authorized by law, but
implicitly not in compliance)
Actually, as we discuss copyrights, it is worth noting that essentially
all infringement is a civil
matter, not a crime against the state (ie not "illegal").
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.
One of the themes of this course is watching how judges and legislators
grapple with complex social changes wrought via technology. Sometimes
it seems that the courts, at least, are getting better at this, decade
by decade. However, note the following:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012: Wikipedia shut down entirely, and Google
made their logo go dark, in protest of the proposed SOPA/PIPA laws. These laws have since gone nowhere.
SOPA and PIPA represent an astonishing degree of technological cluelessness. More below.
File Sharing
First, a clarification: by "file-sharing" I mean the free
exchange of .mp3 files (and now video files) on the internet, typically peer-to-peer (because
big servers are subject to lawsuits, unless they are offshore). The person uploading the music
does not receive compensation, either directly or through advertising.
Some file-sharing software is
advertising-supported, but that's a separate issue.
recent events on the filesharing front:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012: SOPA/PIPA protest shutdown
Thursday, January 19, 2012: the FBI shut down megaupload.com, a massive file-sharing site; see http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-file-sharing-website. However, megadownload.net is still here.
What do you think of these sites?
As for SOPA and PIPA, here are a few highlights (mostly from SOPA):
- If a site hosts copyrighted material without permission, court orders could be obtained ordering all US ISPs to block access to the site. In SOPA, blocking access to the site's IP address is required; PIPA would only seize the site's domain name. From SOPA:
A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable
measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within
the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof)
that is subject to the order...Such actions shall be taken as
expeditiously as possible, but in any case within five days after being
served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may
order.
- Any advertisers or payment processors used by the site would also have to stop.
- It is not clear whether a hearing would be required. In any
event, if you run a small-scale site in Illinois and the complaint is
in California, your only realistic option may be to remove the material
and settle. If you're even allowed to do that.
- An entire site could be blocked based on one copyright complaint
(eg a student at Loyola posts a copyrighted photo on his or her web
page)
- The user-provided-content protection would go away;
sites like Youtube and Myspace would be liable for any content uploaded
by a user. This is still a very muddled area; there is clearly interest
in Congress in continuing to allow sites that make a "good-faith"
effort to discourage infringement. Unfortunately, in the real world
either you have a clear-cut immunity here or else you really cannot
afford to take the risk that one of your users could get you in trouble.
- Search
engines could be ordered not to list offending sites. (Note that google
already does not provide search results for most .torrent files)
- Anonymizing or redirection sites (eg the Tor project) would be banned as tools for circumvention of blocking.
- Either your ISP blocks an offending site entirely
(by IP address), or they do "deep packet inspection" to determine
exactly what you are looking at. The latter option has significant
privacy concerns.
- Sites like Wikileaks would likely be blocked, as some of the materials Wikileaks has released have been commercial and copyrighted.
Google settled sometime in 2011 with the US Dept of Justice for allowing "Canadian pharmacies" to advertise through Google. These
sites sold legitimate prescription drugs to Americans at reduced rates,
but this turns out to be illegal in the US. However, Google may still
list such sites in their search results.
What do you think of laws like PIPA/SOPA? They clearly have the
potential to have drastic affects on our ability to upload material or to blog.
If seven million
people are stealing, they're not stealing.
-
David
Post (Temple Univ Law School) [Sometime around 2000?]
What did Dr Post mean by that?
Questions about what you download (from better to worse?)
- Is it ok to listen to the radio?
- Is it ok to play the radio at a party?
- Is it ok to record off the radio? What about TV?
- What about downloading lyrics?
- What if I already own the CD? (either lyrics or entire tracks)
- Is it ok to download music files off the internet?
Most people would probably be ok with all but #6 here. Note that
#2
might be construed as illegal if the party were in any way not a
"private home affair". One court did rule against #5, in a lawsuit
against mp3.com, but one may suspect the court did not really believe
mp3.com was properly checking if patrons already owned the CD.
Some of the first early popular sites on the internet were song-lyric
repositories. Sometime in the late 90's most of the originals
apparently got cease-and-desist letters; one industry-supported site
would display the lyrics but
wouldn't let you copy or save them, and the display would vanish after
~20 seconds. (Had the developers not been aware of screen-capture?)
Why wasn't the illegal copying of books 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?
Now let's expand the previous list to focus on file sharing in the music-CD context.
- Is it ok to borrow a friend's physical CD?
- Is it ok to give a digital copy of a track to a friend?
- Is it ok to give a copy of an entire CD to a friend?
- Is it ok to let your friend pay you for the blank disk?
- 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?
The first three apply as well to iTunes-type digital tracks.
Many people have at least some concerns with #3, though it somewhat
depends on who you mean by "friend" (cf #5).
How is online file-sharing different here? Numbers 4 and 5 don't really
apply, though what would you say if an online file-sharing service
required you to pay the uploading contributors? How different would the profit motive make things?
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.
(Is it legal for me to play this in class?)
One way to look at these slippery slopes is to be very wary of
"incremental" arguments in ethics. On the other hand, another view
(which we'll come to) is that the real issue with copyright is
preserving the musician's ability to earn money, and (perhaps)
therefore anything that doesn't actually interfere with that is ok.
Which of the items on the list might interfere with the musician's
income?
Conflict:
- if music downloads are seen as being like radio, they might be ok. (What if
they're seen as being like youtube?)
- if they're seen as in-lieu-of-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 they had before
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!!
Keep this "harm is not wrong" idea in mind.
How does shifting from music filesharing (arguably a legitimate fan response, and musicians may make even more money from concerts) to movie filesharing change things?
How the music and movie industries sees it
Make no mistake; many musicians and essentially everyone in the music industry above the level of musicians sees music as a business, and virtually everyone in the movie industry sees it that way.
Many people go into music with the express hope of becoming wealthy.
While hard data is difficult to come by, I suspect that a majority of
those in the music industry believe they have a "natural right" to the
music-related content they create.
Bear in mind that there are many people who have had some idea and feel
some "ownership rights" to their idea. Many people, for example, feel
that they are "entitled" to profit from a business idea they had, or at
least are entitled not to have someone else profit off their idea by
copying it. Example: the Winklevoss twins and Facebook. Many of these people are simply engaging in wishful
thinking.
"Intellectual Property"
[Why am I using quotation marks here?]
Can you own an idea?
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 natural 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 constitution
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 concession.
Using the term "intellectual 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 is
different from real or personal property.
-- "if seven million people are stealing, they
aren't stealing"
-- is it ok to download music?
Another take on this might be to ask whether music as "intellectual
property" can survive, given that out in the real world huge numbers of
people see nothing wrong with file sharing, or at least with file
sharing so long as other people are doing it too.
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 regulated. For
true Chicago-school economists, all regulation is suspect, but note
that many conservatives appear to feel that IP "property rights" run
deeper than simple market regulation. And
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 it's not
necessarily a bad thing.
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 most of us have some belief in "natural rights".
A variant might be regulation in
support of IP is a hallmark of an advanced society.
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 most other
situations studied, the commons are doomed.
Bottom line: time will tell on this one.
The Napster Defense and the Napster Model
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?
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?
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
Let's start with a couple quotes from the sheet-music industry. Here's
the copyright notice on sheet music from Unity Music Press:
Copying
music without permission of the publisher is wrong.
It hurts the composer, the publisher, and ultimately YOU. The money earned from the sale
of this publication is used to make new music available. If you
photocopy this music, YOU are
making it more difficult for composers and publishers to produce new
music for you to use and enjoy.
Don't photocopy this music without
permission of the publisher.
Note the "utilitarian" perspective here: if we don't adhere to
copyright rules, we'll only be hurting ourselves in the future.
Lorenz Publishing includes the following line:
If it were not for this [copyright] law
and public respect and acceptance thereof, the publication of material
such as this would be financially impossible.
What do you think of the "public acceptance" of copyright law as far as
filesharing is concerned?
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?
Who is copyright for?
Here are the two primary justifications for copyright:
- 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
The two approaches have very different bases: the first is about
"natural rights" and our fundamental duty to respect them; the second
is about pragmatism and our own long-term self-interest.
Here's another take on this idea:
- 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.
Along the same lines, if filesharing is stealing, who is being stolen from?
The conventional answer is that the theft is from the creator. What
other answers are possible? Do you believe them?
Suppose someone counterfeits a $20 bill. Who is being robbed? This is
complex; is the analogy to copyright violations apt?
Finally, when we see someone's creative work being ripped off, which do we think?
- that's wrong; that original musician deserved to be compensated. It's his work!
- that's wrong; that will undermine the market for creative works in the future
In parts of Europe, creators have moral rights
to their works. These are copyright-like rights that cannot be sold or
taken away. They don't cover royalties, but they do cover someone's
alteration of the original work.
There are two major schools of thought on legal interpretation of copyright:
- Copyright exists to define property rights for authors and other
creators. Exceptions to copyright (Fair Use, limited time) are to be
construed narrowly. In cases of conflict, the rights of creators are
assumed to dominate. For example, while in the music industry copyright
is primarily focused on recordings themselves, it applies just as
strongly to, say, lyrics.
- The public has a major interest in copyrighted content. Copyright law serves to create several public rights. In
cases of conflict, the claims by the public are to be taken very
seriously. To close a form of public access, content creators need to
prove not that they would lose money but that they would lose so much
that the incentive to create new works would be diminished. For
example, while allowing the recording of TV shows off the air might
violate the letter of copyright law, it does serve the public interest
and may not violate the spirit of the law.
Are we owed money when someone takes our idea? http://xkcd.com/827.
What ideas, if any, do we have to pay for?
Should Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, really have to pay Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for the "idea" of Facebook?
This is important: is copyright an example of the broad right we have
to our own ideas, or is it a special case? And if the latter, why is it
a special case?
Copyright applies to anything "creative" that we produce: written
works, music and movies, of course, but also photographs,
paintings, characters in written works (eg Harry Potter), architectural
plans, and (with certain limitations) designs of household items,
clothing patterns, and craft projects. Sometimes even a musical style can be protected, though that is also often done under trademark law rather than copyright.
Business ideas seldom fit this "creative" model, though we will late in the semester address business-method patents.
Here are yet again the two contrasting approaches to copyright and file-sharing
Copyright is an expression of a
fundamental obligation we have to artists (deontological)
|
Copyright exists
solely to encourage artists to create new works (utilitarian)
|
Issues
What exactly is the obligation here?
Why does the obligation often seem related to return on investment?
Does this obligation apply to the use of ideas?
Does this obligation extend to record-industry executives?
|
Issues
If copyright is purely Utilitarian, why do we often feel that some
fundamental duty is at stake?
|
File sharing is taking something
from the artists
|
File sharing might be taking
from all of us, collectively
|
Harm again
In the ethical theories below, a common principle is that we should not
harm others. How can we reconcile this with the idea that it may be
entirely fair for a business to, through competition, cause someone
else's business to falter or even fail? It is also difficult to find fault with a
consumer's decision to stop renting movies from Blockbuster in favor of
online viewing via Netflix, even though this has led to Blockbuster's
current financial difficulties.
One approach here is to say that marketplace harm is usually unintended,
or, at the very least, is impersonal. Even this, though, is sometimes
unclear. As we will see in the I4I v Microsoft patent case, Microsoft
took actions to improve MS Office with the specific intent of converting some of I4I's
customers to Office: "We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and
met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete..." [reference
in the I4I materials, later]
Another idea is that we're all doing our best to succeed in the world,
but the ups and downs of individual markets are ineluctable,
unavoidable. We cannot predict them or understand them, and so they are
best understood as driven by external forces. Still, this sidesteps the
fact that, for many people in the business world, they are deliberately
attempting to capture some of their competitors' market share.
Yet another approach is to say that if we out-compete someone, we
haven't really harmed them. Most laid-off workers would probably
disagree, but that does not mean they are right.
Ethical Paradoxes
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
selectively (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?