The Ethical Implications of File Sharing - Essay Example

No: Intellectual Property (The Ethical Implications of File Sharing) Introduction We all agree that new technologies have positive as well as negative impact on the existing fundamentals and sentimental boundaries whether right or wrong. The solutions of said problems may have the lasting impact on the future of society. There cannot be two opinions that we are living in a society where potential physical conflict is mind boggling. Pure thoughts in the world history have always led to conflict. The participants of cyberspace are larger than ever as we have witnessed. It is need of the hour to establish effective and practical ethical frame work of IT to deal with the issue of piracy of intellectual property. File sharing, especially of music files, is popularly termed as theft, piracy or free-riding. An in-depth look at music file sharing shows virtues of friendship and sociability among users. This study aims at determining whether file sharing in general is vice or virtual. This study also tries to understand the impulsion of music sharing. Looking at the ethical implications of intellectual property, we observed in the year 2004, there were around 70 million people who actively participated in online file sharing. According to reported poll that conduced by the CNBC News in the year 2009, approximately 58 % Americans were involved in file sharing and in American norms; this is acceptable to enhance their knowledge and pleasure. They are the common opinion in UK that "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances" it can not be termed as stealing of intellectual property. Hence, this sort of sharing increased to the extent of 70% within the age bracket of 18 to 29 year olds (Silverthrone 65). Intellectual Property Creation of minds reflects in the form of new concepts, ideas, inventions, literary and artistic work such as writings, paintings, symbols, images and designs where it can appropriately be termed as an intellectual property. It can be divided into two segments: a) Industrial property which comprised of trademarks, designs and b) Copyright in the shape of novels, poems, radio plays, screen plays, films, documentaries, music, paintings, drawing, photography and computer software.  The above mentioned creations come under the purview of copy right act. In this respect, we may include innovations and creations made by the local communities, as their cultural heritage is part of intellectual property (Greenhalgh & Rogers 135). Famous Software Foundation established by Richard Stallman, he has the view that the term intellectual property in its broader spectrum is confusing. It differentiates things from intellectual property to intellectual property.  However, the Boldrin and Levine are in favor of using the term "intellectual monopoly" as being an appropriate and clear definition of the concept (Lindberg 47). The free software activists have opposed it with tooth and nail. They are of the opinion that such restrictions in the name of copy right will not bear much fruit in handling the issue of piracy. Therefore, they have categorized it in two portions a) physical work and b) intellectual work (Lindberg 54). Ethics The protection with regard to ethical problems is clearly defined in the copy right segment of the intellectual property as far as the sociably valuable goods (life saving drugs and genetically modified seeds) are concerned. Suppose domestic and international pharmaceutical companies that produce medicines of all sorts, under the ethics can prevent other competitors to manufacture the similar product as theirs without incurring or bearing an additional cost requires on research and development of the medicines that has manufactured (Lindberg 82). The intellectual property rights provide an opportunity to the claimant company to claim higher cost of production in order to recover their cost of research and development from the pirate company.  If the mentioned cost of research and development does not bear by the pirate company, it is the bounden duty of the company to take away all these stocks from the market in general and the life saving drugs in specific (Rosen 124). The fact of the matter is that mechanism for innovation, establishes a direct link between the incentive to innovation and the price of the innovative products. Under the IPR regime, profits lies on the generation of profits out of sales products. Incentivizing the products creates monopolization. An IPR driven regime is the enemy of friendly environment for an investment in a country that are producing socially valuable products to its masses, majority of them are from the poor strata of life (Rosen 137). Ethical Implications of File Sharing The best example of file sharing is the invention of internet where people can easily share their files with each other. Audios, videos and other copyrighted / non-copyrighted electronic materials are used to be share on internet. This has raised some interesting ethical issues. The heated debate now a day is that whether file sharing is legally right or not. It requires clear direction and judgments from the competent court of law, whose jurisdiction suits are filed. One may guess the sensitivity of lawsuits in this respect which reached its ultimate destination is the International Court of Justice. We have to look at it with two angles a) case for file sharing and b) the case against file sharing. Now the ball is in the competent court of law to decide it in favor or against of it taking into accounts all pros and cons that are associated with it (Cole). In the absence of any legal remedy, people are found themselves at ease to share files over the internet helping the industry indirectly whose files are being shared. It provides an opportunity to the consumers to get the sample of the product before being launched by the originator. Further, there is an issue of using compressed files which are not in line with the contents of original files. Most of the times you can afford to get materials in the form of instructions manual or in the shape of DVD. The other view with regard to file sharing is that CDs are comparatively expensive for those who want to keep one or more songs. At this modern age, stolen of intellectual property is a profitable business in the absence of any check and balance to protect the copy rights (Cole). Music file sharing can be justified by looking into the following three concepts; virtue ethics, context of copyright and the nature of music sharing. According to Hooft (51), virtue ethics is a term given to a “rediscovered emphasis on ethical action in specific contexts or situations”. Here, we are going to look at the guidelines used in ethical decision-making and uses them in evaluating whether music file sharing is a vice or virtue. In today’s surrounding, file sharing is very simple thus depriving the inventor of the music and the creator of files from their due profits because of downloading their artistic works. The artistic work of an artist is an individual effort to make money for ease of life, therefore, can not be termed it as public property. If someone like song or songs of his or her favorites, he or she can download it or make a copy of it from the original file to be distributed amongst the users. By virtue of this, the originator of the song can not get paid for illegal copies made out of it. It creates file sharing domino down the line which badly affect the salaries and other perks of all the people involved in the production process (Cole). So at the end, it is entirely up to the discretion of users to share or download files online. Despite all that illegal business of downloading, files sharing is rampant. However, law is there to prosecute them. This is being said and truly said that most people who share files are not prosecuted, and it seems that the government is focusing on the actual file sharing network to deal with. The most noticeable case was Napster reported in the year 2001 and since then the respective governments continue to pursue the P2P networks (Cole). Legal Implications of Copyrights File sharing in the eyes of law, in effect is the violation of copyright laws when digital copies of copy righted materials are transferred amongst its users. Peer-to-peer (P2P) technology around the globe permits files sharing and data subject to copyright. The said right allows rights holders to curb the menace of copy writing. However, peer to peer networks can best be utilized for legitimate purpose. In view of its founder, some totally rely upon a centralized server, others are decentralized. However, newly inducted peer to peer system introduced some measures aims at to conceal the identification of senders, its recipients and the contents (Dowd 69). There is need for an understanding of how normatively context of copyright is affected by the one to actualize the impact and potential for virtue ethics (Macdonald 29). The challenges being faced by the rights holders are few in numbers in terms of file sharing systems theoretically and practically. Details of which are a) Ambiguous copyright law b) new challenges in the shape of international communications c) certain legislations d) cumbersome litigation as far as the evidence and the discovery is concerned e) rapidly developing file hosting sites f) mass utilization of technologies and g) identities of those who are involved (Britz 196). There exists two dynamics, inevitably contextual and intertwined, which are present in the understanding of virtue ethics associated with music file sharing (Lametti 37). The copyright laws in force and structure that deals with the internet technology encourage creativity and sharing of information. Being creators and members of social online circles, have the right to assign the task to the persons who has the capability to deliver (Dowd 71). The notion that carries the slogan "All Rights are Reserved" does not find its place as far as the internet culture is concerned. The legal ingredients, in place, with reference to file sharing, initially create legal problems. In this regard you may refer the example of Napster lawsuit that allows online sharing within the legal ambit (Britz 207). Case Law File hosting services can be used as a channel for distribution or files sharing with the consent of copy rights owners. In the mentioned case an individual may upload a file for file hosting service, while the others can download it. Legal assessments of such sorts can be termed as diversified in nature. Reference may please be made to the case of Swiss German file hosting service known as Rapid Share. In the year 2010 the American government’s official declared aforesaid site as "notorious illegal site". The reported reasons to ban this site was the exchange of illegal movies, music and other copyrighted works worldwide. In the case of Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapid share AG in Germany (2010), we witnessed that the Düsseldorf, the higher court of the region perused the claims of alleged infringing activities to arrive at a conclusion since "most people utilize Rapid Share for legal cases" (Anderson). In order to assume it otherwise amounts to invite "a general suspicion against shared hosting services and its users, is not justified”. The court further observed that the site removed copyrighted contents as and when asked. It does not provide an opportunity to the users with regard to searching of illegal material, notable cases of the past linked with Rapid Share. After examining the case, the court was of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs proposals for the restriction of sharing of copyrighted material submitted to the court, found "unreasonable, unjustified and pointless" (Anderson). Like other countries of the developed world, file sharing has become a contentious issue in the United Kingdom. The British government believed that action would be instrumental in driving the vital creative and digital sectors for the future growth and jobs. According to a report published in the year 2009 by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, approximately 95 per cent of music unauthorized downloaded without paying a single penny to the artists. As per the estimation of market research firm namely Harris Interactive there are 8.3 million file sharers in Britain (Arthur). The Digital Economy Bill passed by the Parliament of UK and the Royal on April 9th 2010 had been introduced as Digital Economy Act 2010. The Act in question may have its serious consequences on both stakeholders that is to say a) file sharers and b) internet services providers (Arthur). Conclusion A thorough study of intellectual property in general and the ethical implications of file sharing in specific indicate that up loaders of files and file sharers do not care the copy right policy in letter and in spirit. The law in vogue miserably fails to address the issue of pirating the data and the information by the users in every nook and corner of the World. There is a need to revisit the existing laws to make it more stringent so that the menace of piracy should be curbed in an effective manner. Contrary to that if an individual owns the CD music and shares it within his or her circle of friends and acquaintances cannot be taken as stealing of intellectual property. Hence, this sort of file sharing increased to the extent of 70% with the passage of time amongst the age group of 18 to 29 year olds. Works Cited Anderson, Nate. "Ataris Copyright Attack on RapidShare Unplugged." Ars Technica. 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2012. . Arthur, C. Opposition to the Digital Economy Bill. The Guardian. 5 Feb. 2010. Web. 29 December 2012. . Britz, J. J. Information Ethics: its Demarcation and Application. In: Lipinski, T. A. (eds.) Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Era of Information. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, 2002. pp. 194–219. Print. Cole, J. File Sharing Ethics. Ezine Articles. 27 Jan. 2007. Web. 29 December 2012. . Dowd, Raymond J.  Copyright Litigation Handbook. (1st ed.). London: Thomson West, 2006. Print. Greenhalgh, C. & Rogers M., Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. Hooft, Van. Understanding Virtue Ethics. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen, 2006. Print. Lametti, David. “The Concept of Property: Relations through Objects of Social Wealth”. University of Toronto Law Journal, 53, 325, 2003. Print. Lindberg, Van. Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code. OReilly Books, 2008. Print. Macdonald, Roderick. Lessons of Every Day Law/Le droit du quotidian. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002. Print. Rosen, Ronald (2008). Music and Copyright. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. Print. Silverthorne, Sean. Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2004. Print. Read More