Computer Ethics Paper 1

Due: Monday, June 4

Topic option 1: SOPA/PIPA (sort of)

Filesharing involving copyright infringement began as peer-to-peer operations, sometimes with the involvement of a central server that acts as a "search engine". Such search engines can be very unpopular with Big Content: consider thepiratebay.org. Recently there has been a rise in filesharing where the infringing content is actually stored on the central server, eg the now-defunct megaupload.com. Your paper is to address the conflict between the rights of content owners (eg to stop filesharing sites on a timely basis) versus the rights of ordinary users of the internet. The conflict here is that efforts to eliminate sites that enable online infringing may also eliminate legitimate internet activity.

In the fall of 2011 the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) proposals were introduced into the US Congress. One approach is to ask whether the SOPA and PIPA proposals to go after file sharers go too far. Are there parts of these proposals that are reasonable measures to be taken against file sharers? In going after file sharers, how much should "legitimate" internet sites be restrained? And, finally, is Youtube (or sites like it) a legitimate business or a borderline pirate?

You can focus on SOPA and PIPA in particular, or you can write about the broader process of tradeoffs between content protection and ordinary usage. If you choose the latter approach, the Supreme Court doctrine of "substantial non-infringing uses" (SNIUs) may be relevant; is the SNIU test alone enough to allow a site to operate?

Some of the more-controversial provisions of SOPA/PIPA included:
The 1999 DMCA created the OCILLA safe-harbor provision under which an ISP or hosting company could not be held liable for infringement in user-contributed content as long as they responded promptly to "takedown" notices. Some have argued that Youtube took advantage of this provision, complying with the law but knowing full well that content owners would have difficulty searching all the Youtube content for every infringing example.

One proposal not in SOPA/PIPA, but mandated by some European countries, is to require ISPs to block users or reduce bandwidth to users who have been accused of filesharing. ISPs might also be required to do more inspection of user content, or more logging of sites users have visited, and intervene if users appear to be downloading copyrighted content.

Many of these provisions may have significant impacts on legitimate internet use. However, the world is full of tradeoffs, and many laws have impacts on legitimate activity. At what point do such restrictions on internet use go too far? Are there other ways to approach the problem of file sharing? How seriously should we impact the Internet in our efforts to stamp out file-sharing? Do not lightly dismiss the need of the entertainment industry to reduce piracy.



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.)

Note that 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. Note that modest-length sampling clearly has no effect on the market for the original, but 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 case)? Are artists really entitled to royalties when their work is sampled? Why?

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 (600+ words)