Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering 124
Spring 2005
Information Technology
Appreciating the benefits
Entertainment-games-DVD’s, etc.
World Wide Web and the Internet
Business data
E-mail and e-commerce
Digital libraries
Automobiles/trucks/hybrid cars, ABS brake
sensors, night vision drivers
Information Technology
Distance learning.
Speech recognition.
Simulation-air traffic.
Crime fighting-crime reports, records, analysis,
database fingerprints,etc.
Health and medicine-ct, MRI, patient monitoring
devices, microprocessors, pacemakers, distance
surgery, device to control surgeons shaking,
computerized gene mapping, protein modeling,
telemedicine,
Tools for disabled,
Smart thing sensors,
Reducing paper loss.
Information Technology
Ethical Issues
Privacy and personal information
Freedom of speech in cyberspace
Intellectual property
Cyber crime
Information Technology
Axiological issues
Intellectual colonialism
Related to the internet and WWW:
Loss of the ability to recognize relevance
Acquiring skill
things
Anonymity and nihilism
Information Technology
Ethical Issues
Privacy and personal information
Freedom of speech in cyberspace
Intellectual property
Cyber crime
Privacy and Personal Information
What is the right to privacy?
Background
Legal decisions supporting privacy in social
and business activities were based on
property rights and contracts.
1890, “The Right of Privacy”, by Samuel
Warren and Louis Brandeis, argued that
privacy should be a distinct right. Courts
still decide both ways.
Privacy and IT
What are the privacy Issues related to IT?
Freedom from intrusion of unwanted information into one’s
personal space There is no privacy violation if information is
obtained or published with the person’s consent.
Spam (Junk)
Phishing
Filters
Anti-spam laws
Problem with government interference is infringement of
1st Amendment rights.
Restriction on commercial spam stand a better chance of
being restricted.
Provisions in proposed laws:
Spam must be labeled so it can be easily filtered
Intellectual property
Cyber crime
Freedom of Speech in
Cyberspace
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press…”
Protection against objectionable speech, pictures, and other
forms of expression of ideas and opinions
Restriction are on “the power of government”, not individuals
or private business.
Supreme Ct has developed guidelines
for example advocating illegal acts is (usually) and truthful
advertising are protected
Anonymity protected.
Libel and direct, specific threats, Inciting violence, in certain
circumstances, are all illegal.
Freedom of Speech in
Cyberspace
Regulatory Paradigm
Internet is given a high standard of protection by the
Courts
For example the Communication Decency Act (CDA) 1996
was ruled unconstitutional even though this was an attempt to
regulate pornography that would impact children. Federal
Judge commented that “as the most participatory form of
mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest
protection from government intrusion.”
Freedom of Speech in
Cyberspace
Regulatory Paradigm
Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations restrict
Intellectual property
Cyber crime
Intellectual Property
Intangible creative work protected
U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 of the U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations)
Copyright holder has exclusive rights (life of
the holder plus 70 years), with some
exceptions (backup software permitted):
To make copies; to produce derivative; to perform in
public; to display work in public.
Intellectual Property
Cheating
“Rising Number of Cheating Cases Being
Reported At UC Berkeley”
Professors Aided by Improved Plagiarism-tracking Devices
IT makes it easy for students to plagiarize papers posted
online by copying and pasting text into documents.
Tracking cheaters also easier
Intellectual Property
Legislative History
No Electronic Theft Act (1997)
Act makes it a criminal offense to willfully
infringe copyright by reproducing or distributing
one or more copies of copyrighted works with a
total value of more than $1000 within a six
month period.
Intellectual Property
Fair-Use Doctrine (Copyright Act of 1976)
Four factors to consider in determining whether
particular use is fair
Commercial or non-profit educational purpose
Nature of copyrighted work (creative v. factual)
Amount and significance of portion used
Effect of the use on the market or value of the
copyrighted work
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
Extends copyright from life of the author plus 50
years, to the life of the author plus 70 years.
Intellectual Property
Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] (1998)
Prohibits the making, distributing, or using of tools
(devices, software, or services) to circumvent
technological copyright protection by copyright
holders (encryption).
Protects Internet Service Providers (IPSs) from
liability for copyright infringement by their users. (In
exchange IPS obligated to provide copyright
holders with the identities of suspected infringers
subject to certain safeguards
Intellectual Property
Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA cont.)
Content Scrambling System (CSS) or CSS-compatible open-
source software known as DeCSS.
CSS, (which includes both player-host mutual authentication and
data encryption), is used to protect the content of DVDs from
piracy and to enforce region-based viewing restrictions.
DeCSS, which is open source, allows Linux-based systems to
access the content of DVDs by emulating a licensed player and
performing the authentication and decryption.
Court ruled that distribution of the DeCSS source code violates the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and it is illegal to distribute
CSS compatible source code, including by URL reference ("link")
to the same.
Another court found 1st Amendment protects the software?
Inconsistent rulings!
Intellectual Property
illegal?
Was Napster responsible?
Fair Use
Was it similar to Betamax case? Copying songs for
The upshot of this analysis is that the Court may reach for a compromise
solution. One such solution might be to require Grokster and StreamCast to
police their networks for users' infringement.
Intellectual Property
MGM v. Grokster .
Why the stakes are potentially momentous?
In sum, a win for the defendants here seems lawless - as if it would, in effect,
give a Supreme Court blessing to a possible scofflaw community. But a win for
the plaintiffs seems somehow un-American - allowing courts to tell companies
what to do, even though the companies aren't themselves breaking the law.
We don't even do this with gun manufacturers whose products are used by
some to kill. Is the Supreme Court likely to mandate it for mere software
distributors whose products are used by some to infringe copyright?
And doing so might only put the distributor in a worse legal position: Ironically,
this test seems to suggest that the distributor will be better off if it remains
ignorant of illegal uses, for then it cannot be held vicariously liable for them.
Some courts might want to address this irony by saying that the distributor must
reserve this right and this ability -- and thus must expose itself to a vicarious
infringement claim. But arguably, a court that forced this, might be going too far.
Intellectual Property
MGM v. Grokster
Why the stakes are potentially momentous
Given that Congress has not specifically required the inclusion of such
provisions in the relevant contracts, should courts interpreting copyright
law take it upon themselves to tell Grokster how to structure its software,
and force it to police its own users? Or should the onus be on copyright
owners to devise "lockware" that makes illegal uses of particular files
impossible?
Reasonable minds can differ on the answers to all these questions, I think
-- and for this reason, the Supreme Court will likely feel free to make law,
rather than to simply interpret it, in this crucial case.
FIRST NAME:
Intellectual Property
MGM v. Grokster
Why the stakes are potentially momentous
A key question is: Did the software distributor have the "right and ability" to
supervise for infringement?
We don’t even do this with gun manufacturers whose products are used by some
to kill. Is the Supreme Court likely to mandate it for mere software distributors
whose products are used by some to infringe copyright?
Reasonable minds can differ on the answers to all these questions, I think --
and for this reason, the Supreme Court will likely feel free to make law,
rather than to simply interpret it, in this crucial case.
FIRST NAME:
Intellectual Property
Peer to Peer
Benefits-allows for Open Source and enhanced
research capability and collaboration
Consistent with a network or ecological
worldview/paradigm
Downside-copyright infringement
Intellectual Property
Webcasting generally refers to the streaming of audio on the
Internet. It is sometimes called "Internet radio” and licenses are
required for each of the two copyrighted works embodied in a
musical recording (underlying music and recording).
DMCA allows webcaster to provide programing without
obtaining individual license provided
Offers non-interactive programing
Primarily offer audio or other entertainment programing as opposed to
selling music or promoting particular products
Information Technology
Ethical Issues
Privacy and personal information
Freedom of speech in cyberspace
Intellectual property
Cyber crime
Information Technology
Ethical Issues
Cyber crime
Child pornography
Copyright piracy
Consumer fraud
Embezzlement
Attacks on digital assets (computer is the target)
Identity theft
Acquiring skill
Information Age”
Related to the Internet
Loss of the ability to recognize relevance
Acquiring skill
things
Anonymity and nihilism
Information Technology
Axiological issues
Loss of the ability to recognize relevance
Limitations of hyperlinks---Web crawlers and search