Copyright And Ethics - Research Paper Example

Copyright and Ethics The paper reviewed the concept of ethics in granting intellectual property protection in general and copyrights in particular. Several arguments and theories in this regard have been discussed. There are proponents who state that granting such rights is illegal because of the inherent nature of creative work to be shared by multiple users at the same time, even crossing geographical boundaries. But those who support the ethics factor are a majority. The problem is that this concept is relatively nascent when compared to other forms of real property (land, buildings etc). There is no religious precedence in this regard. But practically all literature on this area respects the right to ownership. Concepts like ownership as a result of labor, economic considerations, encouraging innovation and creativity support the view that copyrighting is not unethical. More importantly utilitarian concepts form the foundation of many modern IP protection and copyright laws which takes into consideration the rights of the creator/owner and the users by limiting the period of ownership of such property. It can be concluded that such a stand is ethical and IP protection and copyrights are an essential factor in modern societies. Introduction: In general, all human beings have the ability to think and invent, create and innovate objects whether it is in the field of industry, business or the arts. Many people go about their daily lives, thinking on how to overcome a challenge, or how to better their lives. But some do have the special ability to create or develop something new that has not existed before. This could be an invention or a work of art. The question is whether such unique creations are the property of the creator/owner or whether it is to be free for everyone interested to use them as they wish. Is it proper that the owner should have exclusive rights to own his or creation and use it as they wish within social and legal parameters? Most nations now provide some form of legal right to the creator/owner which is commonly referred to as intellectual property rights. It should be noted that the word creator/owner/s denotes the actual owner who has potential commercial interests in an intellectual property. In reality not all creator/owners are owners, they could be employees like a software developer working for an organization. This paper reviews the concept of intellectual property rights with focus of copyright which forms a part of this legal right. The question is whether provision of such rights is ethical from a social, legal and moral point of view. The paper will discuss the pros and cons of this argument (using relevant literature) and arrive at a logical conclusion which will be given at the end. Intellectual property and copyright: It would be worthwhile to have a brief overview of intellectual property and copyright laws especially in the United States. As mentioned earlier, intellectual property (IP) derives from creativity whether it is a piece of machinery, an invention, book, painting and similar objects that can legally provide exclusive ownership rights to the creator/owner. To be more specific, “IP is a bundle of rights that protects applications of ideas and information that have commercial value” (Licensing Division, 2006, 11). There is an indication that IP rights are provided on in case where commercial aspects are involved. It appears that this concept is considered to be important in today’s world because many theories have evolved around this aspect. Patents, trademarks, copyrights and design registrations are the four common types of IP rights (Lowe, 2004). Copyrights (the focus for this paper) are generally granted for books, software, music, films and similar original works. Copyright is a constitutional right in the United States according to Article 1. Section 8(1) states “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” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.) which in effect is copyright. So, unlike patents, copyright is granted automatically to creator/owners of original work if it has commercial possibilities. A person does not have to request for copyright and can freely use the symbol ‘©’. It should be noted that ideas alone cannot be copyrighted. The matter should be visible to the outside world in some form (for example print or electronic media). Also another factor to be mentioned is that copyrights are not permanent and they expire after a period of time as deemed by law. For example, copyright for books expire after a period of seventy years after the death of the author. It should be noted that computers were a much more recent phenomenon when compared to printed material and copyright protection for software came only during the middle of the twentieth century (Moore, 1998, 16). But as the use of computers became wider in all senses (number and diversity of applications), laws were changed over the years to provide copyright began to be granted for software also. Initially, the source code was printed on paper for this purpose. But this only gave protection to the code on the paper on not the ones in the computer. It is well known that any matter stored on the hard disk can only be read by computers and not humans. The real need for developers was copyright protection for the code inside the computer and not on the paper. Eventually laws were passed which provided protection to codes that could be read by both human beings and computers. Is copyright unethical? This is the main part of the paper and will attempt to review both sides of the argument, or in other words, arguments which state that it is so and not so. Relevant theories of copyright and ethics will also be discussed to support the arguments. “The basis for these rights, however, is hotly debated, as is the purpose of the rights, and what protection should (or should not) be provided intellectual property in the future” (Warwick, 1999). Copyrighting is ethical According to Warwick, these theories are based on two different set of reasons. The first one is that any form of labor should be rewarded and copyrights are a way for achieving this purpose. This view was propounded by John Locke in his book ‘The second treatise’ (Vaughn, 1978, 312). Any person who has create or own property through labor or effort is entitled to decide what to do with it. Locke does not seem to specify the concept of copyright as such. But copyrightable materials can also be considered to be property and the creator/owner has the rights to it. But there are considerable differences on the origin and purpose of intellectual property. According to Vaughn, before the advent of organization society and laws, the resources of the earth were there for everyone to share. Some theorists argue that the right to private property was a concept allowed by the society, and the same society has the right to change the laws or even withdraw it altogether. But Locke argues that this right is given as a part of natural law because many of the resources cannot be fully shared. An example could be a dwelling where a family lives. There is a limit to sharing in this case and hence it is a part of nature for a person to own property. In other words, nature by itself does not provide all the necessities for humans and it is only labor that can satisfy all requirements for life. A third view is that it is the state and not the society or nature that provides the right to property and the United States in general take this stand (Warwick, 1999). The author also states that IP protection encourages creativity in authors and developers. Moreover advancements in hardware increased diversity of applications and the need for better software in a dynamic environment requires constant creativity. This requires large volume of resources in terms of expertise, money and time. Companies need to recover its costs since they are doing business to make profits. Copyrights are one way to help companies achieve this aim. Taking the position of Locke, it is only right to provide protection for their efforts. An article on computer ethics takes the stand that people are in a position to make illegal use of software. They change the source code for such purposes if source code was made available (Bhattarakosol, 2001, 63). Only strong IP laws along with copyright protection can prevent this to a certain extent. The author apparently takes the view that this will prevent illegal use of software to a large extent and hence ethical. But countries with weak implementation of IP laws will only encourage such activities even if copyrights are granted to the creator/owner. Illegally printed bestsellers and popular software like Microsoft Office are often copied with impunity in many countries especially in Asia. Hence the very purpose of granting copyrights is defeated in such cases. But protection is inevitable especially considering the amount and effort spent in developing software. Developers and companies need to recover the amount and generate profits as well. If software is freely distributed, then the motivation to create and upgrade existing software will cease to exist. A more balanced view is provided by Landes and Posner according to Warwick. These two theorists take a stand between total lack of protection and too much of it. Their stand is based on the economic aspects of copyrights. They argue that too much protection will raise the cost of the creation probably making it unaffordable to middle and lower income groups. On the other extreme total lack of IP protection will hinder creativity which is an integral part of modern society. Similar arguments which support the moral rights of creators/owners to a right of ownership based on moral grounds and integrity of the society. With regard to integrity, Warwick referring to Jacobs and Mimmer states that proper acknowledgement from where a particular idea or information was taken should be clearly stated. But here again, the right of a person to alter the text published by another person and publish it as an original work may result in an infringement of copyright laws. As mentioned earlier, copyrights now covers codes printed on paper as well as those that can be read by machines (Moore, 1998, 16). He also seems to be of the opinion that IP protection is a right and is in fact legal and ethical. An article on cybercrime states that unauthorized copying of protected material is illegal and can be classified as an illegal act (Al-A’ Ali 2007). The author takes this concept into an Islamic society to test its views on cybercrime. An interview and review of literature/laws was used for this purpose. While there is no direct reference copyright ethics, the findings indicate that this practice is neither illegal nor unethical. It is perfectly allowable (and ethical) for a person to own property and anyone else who infringes this right is committing a crime. It should be noted that Islamic laws do not expressly refer to the concept of intellectual property, but only tangible property. This could be true for other religions like Christianity as well. Free and open source software and free books: Free books and software are readily available especially on the internet. But here again, the contents of the book and the source code of the software will be copyrighted. Some sites (like Wikipedia) allow users to change the content, but not the source code. Wikipedia practically allows free editing of the content and states that it does not hold copyrights on the articles that appear on its websites. But it cautions users to be cautious in posting their views which should not infringe the copyrights of other publications. The concept of open source software and copyright issues is more complicated since this is a recent phenomenon even by electronic standards. Developers of such software allow practically unrestricted right to users to change or improve on the source code. But even here copyright are granted even though infringements are difficult to judge. In the United States courts in different states use different standards to judge a case (Johnny, Miller & Webbink, 2010, 24). So, copyright protection is provided to developers of even open source software. Copyrighting is unethical: One of the strong proponents of this view is Edward Hettinger who states that intellectual property is different from other forms of tangible property. He states that IP can be shared and does not deplete even after repeated use. “Why should one person have the exclusive right to use and possess something which all people could possess and use concurrently” (Hettinger, 2008, 552). An example is computer software which can be used by as many users and does not deplete its value despite innumerable uses. Hettinger on the other hand does not object to rights of properties that is tangible and could become old with time and repeated use. The author adds that one of the reasons for high levels of software piracy is the indignation that people feel towards copyrights on a product that could easily be shared. Hettinger provides further arguments regarding this. He states that most creations are based on earlier efforts of organizations and people. For example, the machine language used in computers form the basis of practically all software created in the world today. Granting copyright to a particular product will not in any way be beneficial to the creator/owners of machine language. This is a form of injustice and hence unethical. Discussion and conclusion: The concept of whether copyrighting is unethical is a relatively new controversy. There are no religious references regarding this. Religious texts only state that use of another person’s property without his permission is illegal. It does not specifically state about the ownership of intellectual property. The only arguments regarding the ethics of copyright are either moral or social in nature. Those who support IP copyrights are of the opinion that any creation whether real or electronic should be protected legally. Most countries also take this stand including the United States. According to Warwick, the issue of the ethics of copyright is no longer an issue. The current stand is granting rights to the creator/owners will result in a balance of rights between them and the end users. The copyright period protects the rights of the creator/owner. When the duration ends and the work enter the public domain, then the rights of the users come into force. This view is expressed in another article as well. The author states that copyright (and IP) laws in the United States are based on utilitarian concepts where by everyone or the maximum number of people benefits. A copyrighted material has two distinct parameters, the creator/owner and the user. Due to its uniqueness it can be read, used or seen by a number of people at the same time. In the case of software, there is practically no limit to the number of users unlike a film or book. Taking the utilitarian approach, both the creator/owner and the user should benefit. This is exactly the logic behind the law especially in the United States. Patents and ownership of real property are permanent and will continue permanently unless the owner wishes to dispose of it or loses the property due to some legal issues. It could also be acquired by the state for development (for example roads), but adequate compensation will generally be provided. Arguments that support copyrighting as being unethical are weak. They only take a stand that since intellectual property has an inherent feature that enables multiple sharing, providing ownership rights is unethical. But the overwhelming majority, whether social, moral or legal, apparently supports the concept of protection and does not seem to find anything wrong with IP rights. IP protection and copyrights have now become an integral part of most of the countries. The only difference is the effectiveness of implementation of intellectual property rights. Most advanced societies have an infrastructure that is more effective in this regard. This paper concludes that copyright protection is an ethical practice which follows utilitarian principles (especially in the United States). The one factor to be considered is that people live in a dynamic environment where diverse types of technology and creativity evolve constantly. It is up to individual states to constantly review the situation and bring about regulations in tune with the times. There is also no doubt as to the fact that it is the state and not necessarily the society that determines IP protection copyrights. But it is felt a limited duration with regard to such rights is an ideal balance that protects the rights of the creator/owner and the users of a product classified as intellectual property. References Al-A’ Ali, M (2007). Cybercrime and the law: an Islamic view, Webology, 4(3), Retrieved 15 April 2012 from http://www.webology.org/2007/v4n3/a46.html Bhattarakosol, P (2001). A perspective in computer ethics, Manusya Journals, Retrieved 15 April 2012 from http://www.manusya.journals.chula.ac.th/files/essay/Pattarasinee_62-67.pdf Hettinger, E. C. (2008). Justifying intellectual property. In F. Allhoff & A. Vaidya (Eds.), Business in ethical focus: an anthology (pp. 550-563). Broadview Press. Johnny, O., Miller, M., & Webbink, M. (2010). Copyright in the open source software. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 2(1), 13-38. Legal Information Institute (n.d.). Article 1, Cornell University Law School, Retrieved 15 April 15, 2012 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei Licensing Division (2006). Grower’s review of intellectual property, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office Lowe, V (2004). Intellectual property rights, European Generic Medicines Association, Retrieved 15 April 2012 from http://www.egagenerics.com/gen-ipr.htm Moore, J.H (1998). Reason, relativity, and responsibility in computer ethics, Computers and Society, Retrieved 15 April 15, 2012 from http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~stan/csi2911/moor1.pdf Vaughn, K. I. (1978). John Locke and the Labor Theory of Value. Journal of Librarian Studies, 2(4), 311-326. Warwick, S (1999). Is copyright ethical? Boston College, Retrieved 15 April 2012 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060505.html Read More