Principles of Management – File Sharing
Software Liability Court
Case
The main issues here was for the court to rule on whether
legal uses of file sharing software outweighed the illegal sharing of
copyrighted material which the entertainment industry says accounts
for more than 90% of the traffic over these systems.
In the
Supreme Court arguments, lead Attorney’s projection of copyright
infringement was a
moral right view. Justice Paul’s question on
legitimate uses of Grokster was a
utilitarian view. Justices Scalia
and Breyer’s concern about detriments of the budding
technology as
well as mention of FCC differential rules application were justice
views. Their later comparison of the Xerox
machine and video
cassettes and suggestion of a period plan were
practical views.
(Charles and Jr. Website)
On the commentary article of the upcoming case, the synonym of
the machine with virtual access to homes, bank accounts and
automobile in the US is a moral view. There suggestion that the
customer will use the machine for legal means only is a practical
view. The desperation that nothing will be done when the promise is
broken is a justice view. The anticipation that many people are
likely to be attracted to this machine is a utilitarian view.
(Franzosi
& Sanctis 1 )
Further in the commentary, the recognition that neither the
government nor the society would tolerate that technology is a moral
rights view. The financial and human population quantification is a
utilitarian view. The companies’ disclaimer of responsibilities in
the damages is a practical view. The government’s stand that the
markets are merely based on capacity to infringe while building
critical financial masses is a moral rights view. The recognition of
the historical constitutional efforts and justice system to enforce
copyright
law is a justice view. Loss of jobs income by artist is a
moral right view. All reference to the digital era and the public
attraction are utilitarian view. (Franzosi & Sanctis 1)
In the opinion and columnists’ section, the
comment “Going against his argument, suing
software innovators out of existence will certainly prevent the
launching of groundbreaking new software ideas that threaten the
powerful status quo” is a utilitarian view. The next comment “On
legal grounds, I continue to be amazed that the precedent of the
movie studios trying to prevent Sony from producing VCRs isn''t
considered an exact parallel in this case” is a justice view. The a
utilitarian and moral view is also seen in the comment “the RIAA
would do far better to co-opt these new technologies to promote legal
alternatives like iTunes than to sue the folks who made iTunes
possible” (Davies 26)
Paul’s comments on kids usage of internet and the
contradiction by the congress is a practical view. He doubts if the
RIAA has moral right to check copy right infringement. Howard’s’
argument are fully a utilitarian view. His further request to produce
the journal online is a practical view so that the journal can
confirm the justice in it. Finnaly Prof Wendy’s concerns stem from
double standards of justice view and application. He gives
recommendation that a more practical view of the technology vs. copy
right infringement should be adopted. ( Franzosi & Sanctis
2 )
Work CitedDavies,
G., The Convergence of Copyright and Authors'' Rights: Reality or
Chimera?(1995) 26:6IIC 964
Franzosi,
M. & de Sanctis, G., "Moral Rights and New Technology: Are
Copyright andPatents Converging?" <1995> .2 EIPR 63.Charles
W. Heil, Jr. P.E. Ethical Considerations When Implementing AdvancedTechnologies;
Available at http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/4/eit2000/heil.doc Accessed on January
19, 2008.
More abstracts about the SOFTWARE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND LAW