Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Reflections: Part I
This first period of instruction has been
enlightening and frustrating for me in a sense. Prior to this course, I had
some knowledge of what philosophical arguments are and how they are classified.
I figured ethics in information science and technology simply consisted of a
concrete, clear-cut set of standards that are to be followed in order to be in
compliance with the law. But now I understand that it goes way beyond that.
Little did I know is what an overwhelming effect it plays a role in cyberspace and
information technology.
We started by covering the meaning of ethics and
where it is derived from. Then, we quickly transitioned into multiple theories
and how they can be interpreted and applied in any given situation. Basically,
we are being taught how to form and reinforce arguments properly. This has been
effective in a sense, but also has become somewhat confusing. In my opinion, it
seems as if there is really no “right” answer to any argument. It seems like
the only way to win an argument is to have it with oneself, which can still
leave one in a daze.
From personal experience and observations, I tend to
lean toward/support the theory of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is
defined in as moral system that is dependent on, or relative to, a particular
culture or group (Tavani, 50). This theory can really help us with our
misconception of other cultures and their belief systems and habits. Beliefs
like religion, which seems to play a major role in almost everything, and
government, which is constantly being debated. Tie in all the information
technology and distribution and now there’s a big problem!
This is where information ethics comes into play. It
provides philosophical ideologies as templates to raise the necessary level of
critical thinking that needs to be applied when dealing with situations that
are “ethically challenging.” There have been numerous dilemmas regarding who is
the brain trust behind all things intellectual with the exorbitant amount of
information and technology combined advancements over the past few decades. I
don’t think this course will solve the issues, but I think it will get us to
think more critically before we are quick to judgment regarding any of them.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Jacob Recha LIS 120 Blog Post Reading Reflection #1
Over the last few weeks, what has engaged me most, and therefore, what I've been obsessed with trying to apply are objective moral truths to life, even if there is not one particular best moral truth for every situation, or indeed, there are some situations where only wrong moral answers can be pointed out, I do believe that some objective moral truths exist. I've also been trying to comprehend just how my objective system of ethical theory relates to the roles I portray both in life as an information professional, a human technology user, and in video games, as various characters whose cultures are far foreign to my own. I pose that while I believe objective moral truths exist, they are complex statements evaluated by ethical theories such as act or rule utilitarianism, as well as act or rule based duty ethics(deontology).
Moral Truths
Firstly, I identify an objective moral truth as a directive, or rule of conduct that should be defensible as true, through reason alone to show that the statement is true, in all situations. For example, Tavani states "Many philosophers and ethicists argue that reason alone is sufficient to show that stealing is wrong - reason informs us that there is something either in the very act of stealing or in the consequences of the act that makes stealing morally wrong" (42). This does not mean there are not reasonable defenses as to commit the opposite of the rule, simply that the rule is a claim that can be made and defended by reason alone.
Objective moral truths I argue are those that can be evaluated as a statement to prove that they uphold an intrinsinc good, or discourage an intrinsinc bad, based on criteria set forth by a specific system, or ethical theory, I believe ethicists to be most capable of performing the tasks required of defending objective moral truths, while moralists may be less able. Moralists, and absolutists may claim to have objective truths, "some moralists may have a particular agenda to advance" (Tavani 44), I take this statement by Tavani to mean that a moralist of any sort may be more likely concerned with imposing their rules of conduct on others by belief alone that they are universal, rather than having analyzed the moral directives for universality. An ethicist, in comparison to a moralist, is someone who studies "morality from the perspective of philosophical methodology, and who thus appeal to logical arguments to justify claims and positions involving morality" (Tavani 43).
Relative, Absolute, or Objective
Moral relativism, absolutism, and objectivism, like cultural relativism, all fail in providing universal truths, or even ways of evaluating statements for partial truth, or equivalent morality to other truths. Cultural relativism does little more than state a fact that "Different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong behavior" (Tavani 50). Moral relativism implies that we can not, or should not judge, or form evaluations of other cultures' moral behaviors, and therefore any behavior or answer to a moral question can be appropriate given the majority of a given culture holds the same view. Moral absolutism is similar to moralist methodology of claiming single truths for all ethical dilemmas, regardless of the naivette of such a claim. Moral objectivism and ethical objectivism are views Pojman and others "believe that it is possible to hold... which is between the two extremes." (51).
Personal Application
All of this leads me to a current obsession over moral truth in our world, a world that I believe holds infinite possibilities, including the unbinding of the laws of physics. Applying what I've learned to scenarios that occur in my life lead me to believe I am in the moral minority of my culture, in what I deem to be right and wrong (I believe "professionalism" as a requirement to certain types of work to be ethically unsound, as it creates a false atmosphere, and requires a dichotomous lifestyle, forcing employees to give up freedoms, and in many cases, money they earn from working, to lie about themselves for the sake of some social construct.) I would not benefit from assuming a relativistic outlook. I also have been obsessively applying or attempting to apply the idea of a moral truth that stands the tests of time, and science fiction, by applying ethical objectivstic ideas and theories to video games in which cultures embrace the slaying of "monsters" or allow "heroes" to go around thieving, breaking objects, or otherwise doing a lot of what would be considered bad things in the real world.
As I look at my own theories about what is right and wrong, a game like Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, has me making moral choices like: Chase down the young lady, Midori, whom I know will die today based on a premonition my computer tells me about, or chase down my former ally Keisuke, who has become the spirit of vengeance, before he harms innocent people. There is backstory to why the former ally is now calling out for justice on the humans who are mostly innocent.
The backdrop of the game is that everyone within a subway loop near Tokyo Japan is now trapped, and demons have been appearing, people are becoming aware of their presence, and the party, as well as a few NPCs, have the ability to summon demons through their little computer devices, to combat the evil ones running rampant. Midori has been wildly showing off her demon summoning ability to protect normal humans from demons that she sees attacking them, however, having been in a lockdown for three days, the humans are afraid and lash out in a witch hunt style manner, intending to kill her for being in league with the demons that are part of the cause of their being trapped in the first place. Keisuke has a crush on Midori, and has a very strict moral system, on top of that, he's a highly stressed individual. When he realizes that it's not demons who will kill his crush that is predicted to die today, Keisuke has a near mental breakdown, and rushes off. We catch up with Keisuke just as he is summoning a new and powerful demon, with which he intends to kill the civillians who have backed Midori into a corner.
We rescue Midori, but she runs off, unconvinced that she should stop 'helping people' so publically, and our computer continues its premonition that she will die today if something does not change. With that, our party is given the choice:
"Chase down and stop Keisuke before he hurts someone.
Rescue Midori." (SMT: DS 2009)
My own view of ethics in this matter is somewhat utilitarian, and states that I have to sympathize with the innocent civillians, protect them from harm, both from demons and from tamers alike, even if they resent being saved, and that Midori is one life, while Keisuke could take many more lives in the time it takes me to find her. The game however railroads me into finding her first, obviously disagreeing with my own evaluation of the ethical dilemma at hand.
This brings me to my ethical dilemma on objective moral truths. I believe killing to be wrong, and yet I am playing a game, attempting to apply my own moral directives to the choices given to me, a game in which I regularly slay or banish demons (and team up with them). I am however given options to save lives on a regular basis, even given tasks in certain battles that require me to scare civillians without killing them. Yet when it comes down to a choice that I spent fifteen minutes weighing out consequentially, the world that the programmers designed disagreed with my application of morals from my particular school of ethical thought. The world said to me that at least one programmer believes: "It is better to save a guaranteed life now, than to possibly prevent numerous deaths in the short term." I can't argue with it, it is not fundamentally flawed, it is a valid moral statement, saving a life is a morally positive action. However, saving more in my mind is more moral, even if those lives are of ungrateful, xenophobic, near-racist individuals.
Conclusion
Do objective moral truths exist? I believe so, due to their ability to be wrought by pure reason alone. Are they as simple as "stealing and killing are wrong"? I don't believe so, because situations can arise in which there are few options, perhaps only two, and either one include death or stealing. An ethical theory is needed to evaluate the consequences of the actions, and one must decide whether duty, utility, and rules or acts are the best way to evaluate moral dilemmas. I tried to apply rule utilitarianism to a role I portrayed in a video game, but I was balked by the way the world in which I was taking part was created.
Works Cited
Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor. Atlus Co., 2009. Computer software.
Tavani, Herman T. "Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System." Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011. 35-70. Print.
Jacob Recha
LIS 120 Spring 2012
Bradley Compton
Reflection
I really enjoyed learning about the basics of ethical theory so we can carry on the rest of the semester with some backbone. Thinking about the meta-ethical debate was something that started my gears to turn. There is the question of are these familiar problems, new problems or old problems with a new twist? I have decided that these are old problems with a new twist. Common things like stealing, bullying, and controversy of sharing information have always been problems. The difference now is that they are shared throughout the whole world for a lot of people to see.
I really wanted to see different people’s opinion when it came to “stealing” information from the internet. I brought it up in conversations to see what other people thought. I got so many different answers. What really made me have a different view was Stallman’s take on the whole thing. He says that information is something that naturally we want to share and communicate. This does have a very good outlook on the human race but I think that it goes much deeper than that. It was interesting reading how in other countries it is an honor for someone to steal work off of the internet, almost as a form of flattery. However, I do not agree with this.
I am big on making lists. To do lists, list of things I need to buy, and especially lists of pros and cons. That is why I immediately took a liking to the utilitarian outlook on things. If I was to apply this to the problem of illegal downloading I would lean more towards it being a bad thing. I liked learning about our exclusive society and reading about other inclusive societies.
Someone in class said that the companies do not get hit very hard from people stealing information. However, others pointed out about the smaller businesses getting affected like record store owners. Although it kills me to say it I feel like our world is a little greedy. And therefore we are out for personal gain. We should not take advantage of others. If they want their information to be shared they will make it public for free.
I realized that simple ethics we use in everyday life can be used online as well. Like I said there may be some new exceptions because it is a new medium but like Tavani said ethical theories are guidelines and framework for our decisions.
My Blog #1
My Blog Posting #1
The first four weeks of class have been quite interesting for me. This may be a little wordy or detailed, but let's see. Reading others post opened me up to many thoughts of being morally right, wrong, and just what ethics really consist of. Some of the post from others were great. Some just seemed to be post that were made to try and get credit.
I must admit that I think I made a post that had the right idea and was on track to make the right point but it just did not come out right. I did attempt to correct that. Overall I find that this is a little more in depth compared to how the introduction videos by the instructor presented the posting to be. Again probably just my mistake on what was being conveyed in the message. The instructor presented information and I did not grasp it correctly. I think I am on point though now.
Just reading others post, I have learned how others interpret what ethics is to them or how they perceive it to be. That itself I find quite interesting as it shows individuality of each person. I believe out of the first 4 weeks of class I have liked week 3's discussion the most. The question were more easily understood. Week 4 has been a bit tough for me. The readings seem a little wordy.
Something else I have found to be quite interesting is that as time has went on it appears I learning something new about this class that I did not know beforehand even after reading the syllabus multiple times. I guess that is all part of learning. Something I was not expecting is to be challenged/engaged by the instructor for one of the post I made. I was like what did I say or do wrong. After I read the post I see where it got away from me at. I guess I thought I was back in the philosophy 101 class and forgot I was in an IT ethics class. The engagement actually opened my eyes to see what I need to do for the class to make sure this is a success for me.
Another odd thing that happened this past we was I got to me my team members for my senior capstone for Information Technology. We discussed our group project. The topic of software came up and one member mentioned he had a copy of Adobe probably not legit but working on his laptop. We all laugh and said you know you can get a legit copy for free for being part of the BSIT program/Microsoft Alliance. He did not know that. My thought is he was given this copy of software or either downloaded it as pirated. Now I'm not judging anyone but I found interesting that I am taking an IT ethics class right now and some of the recent topics have been just about this type of stuff. This just left me whit the open though of um, I wonder if he had take the I.T. ethics class.
So my overall take on these past few weeks is intellectual property belongs to who? You buy it, is it yours? You get it from a friend, does that make it illegal. You download it just to try it out and if you like then buy. What's ethically right, ethically wrong. I guess the big picture here is what service does the digital media of another provide for another? And if this service actually has utility should it be protected? From Tavani, pg. 53, why do we need ethical theories may give answer to these questions. "Ethical theory, like scientific theory , provides us with a framework for analyzing moral issues via scheme that is internally coherent and consistent as well as comprehensive and systemic."
With that said if we use that above explanation we can assume that intellectual property is that of the owner who created it and should be treated as that even when distributed or shared. But for others this may differ so I ask what do you all think.
Blog #1 - Ricardo Iniguez
When I first registered to take this course, I knew how I felt--and still feel the same way--about certain issues pertaining to privacy, intellectual property and ethics in social networking.
The readings assigned the first four weeks have expanded on these issues and have added great examples to keep us—the readers—engaged with these current issues in today’s digital world.
We are all individuals and therefore we will see and analyze ethical issues that arise because of digital technology very differently. In chapter 6 of Ess’s Digital Media Ethics, Ess describes two of the most used theoretical frameworks, Utilitarianism and Deontology. These two frameworks—which I never knew existed—helps us analyze ethical issues with the hope to resolve our ethical problems we face. We, the students, were given an option to share a deontological/ utilitarian interpretation of an ethical problem we see in our life or in the world. While doing this assignment I noticed that without knowing, I apply the utilitarian approach to most of my decisions in life. This approach (utilitarian)—which is basing your decision on costs and benefits—seems to be a logical one and one that some students (Adam S, Jacob R, Chelsea S) in this class seemed to favor when resolving ethical problems. It is not to say that the deontological approach is not considered, for me this approach—which is based on duty—arises when you only have one option.
One topic that I was really engaged with was reading about intellectual property and illegal downloading. Just throwing it out there, I don’t take part in illegal downloading anymore. Ever since my daughter was born (7 years ago), I decided that downloading a song for free instead of paying $1 was not worth the penalties and wasn’t showing a good example. I’m not proud of this behavior in the past and I believe that engaging in illegal downloading is wrong, but oddly I don’t judge anyone for doing this. Why is it that I don’t judge? Two big reasons! The first one is that I believe that the recording, software, movie companies over price their product and take full advantage of us, the buyer. Not only do they overprice, they also jack up their prices when they see an opportunity to make more money (Capitalism at its best). Just two weeks ago, iTunes raised their prices on all Whitney Houston’s songs and took advantage of her passing (no laws to stop this behavior). Also, Microsoft has stopped giving the student discount for Windows 7 (Full version), six months ago it sold for just $49 dollars and now a student has to pay full price (I just purchased this full version for $199. I was offered a free copy with valid license key and said no). I believe that a lot of students who own Macs need to access certain applications/programs that only Windows offers. Microsoft knows this and has responded by lifting the student discount ☹. The second reason I don’t judge is because of the ease of access of obtaining illegal copies of songs/software/movies and the fact that these same artist/movie and software companies themselves have broken copyright laws by sampling, code re-use and stealing ideas from different movies (A remix manifesto). This explanation touches base with Heather Johnson’s (Ess, p.71) view. She sees that today’s user is in unknown territory and the user thinks that it is ethically acceptable to download for free.
Lastly and very brief, I’ll never understand why people can’t understand ethics when it involves social networks and posting. Our sensitivity towards others privacy should always be considered and at no point should you ever put anyone or self in a bad spot by posting inappropriate content…PERIOD!
We are all individuals and therefore we will see and analyze ethical issues that arise because of digital technology very differently. In chapter 6 of Ess’s Digital Media Ethics, Ess describes two of the most used theoretical frameworks, Utilitarianism and Deontology. These two frameworks—which I never knew existed—helps us analyze ethical issues with the hope to resolve our ethical problems we face. We, the students, were given an option to share a deontological/ utilitarian interpretation of an ethical problem we see in our life or in the world. While doing this assignment I noticed that without knowing, I apply the utilitarian approach to most of my decisions in life. This approach (utilitarian)—which is basing your decision on costs and benefits—seems to be a logical one and one that some students (Adam S, Jacob R, Chelsea S) in this class seemed to favor when resolving ethical problems. It is not to say that the deontological approach is not considered, for me this approach—which is based on duty—arises when you only have one option.
One topic that I was really engaged with was reading about intellectual property and illegal downloading. Just throwing it out there, I don’t take part in illegal downloading anymore. Ever since my daughter was born (7 years ago), I decided that downloading a song for free instead of paying $1 was not worth the penalties and wasn’t showing a good example. I’m not proud of this behavior in the past and I believe that engaging in illegal downloading is wrong, but oddly I don’t judge anyone for doing this. Why is it that I don’t judge? Two big reasons! The first one is that I believe that the recording, software, movie companies over price their product and take full advantage of us, the buyer. Not only do they overprice, they also jack up their prices when they see an opportunity to make more money (Capitalism at its best). Just two weeks ago, iTunes raised their prices on all Whitney Houston’s songs and took advantage of her passing (no laws to stop this behavior). Also, Microsoft has stopped giving the student discount for Windows 7 (Full version), six months ago it sold for just $49 dollars and now a student has to pay full price (I just purchased this full version for $199. I was offered a free copy with valid license key and said no). I believe that a lot of students who own Macs need to access certain applications/programs that only Windows offers. Microsoft knows this and has responded by lifting the student discount ☹. The second reason I don’t judge is because of the ease of access of obtaining illegal copies of songs/software/movies and the fact that these same artist/movie and software companies themselves have broken copyright laws by sampling, code re-use and stealing ideas from different movies (A remix manifesto). This explanation touches base with Heather Johnson’s (Ess, p.71) view. She sees that today’s user is in unknown territory and the user thinks that it is ethically acceptable to download for free.
Lastly and very brief, I’ll never understand why people can’t understand ethics when it involves social networks and posting. Our sensitivity towards others privacy should always be considered and at no point should you ever put anyone or self in a bad spot by posting inappropriate content…PERIOD!
Blog Post #1
So far chapter 3 in the Tavani textbook has been the most engaging for me of all the reading. The topic of illegal downloading and digital media in general has always been an interesting topic for me. The thought of is digital media really ours? Since we have no actual physical copy of the media we buy what rights to we have concerning it? Just a few of the questions that these readings have made me think about.
Another section of chapter 3 that grabbed my interest was on the case: Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. in 1984. I just sat back and thought about the consequences that could have come from that decision had it gone the other way. No video recording. No need to improve that technology further. Had that decision gone in favor of banning that technology I think this would be an entirely different conversation.
The readings that I did not find very interesting/ thought provoking are those for chapter 2 of the Tavani textbook on the ethical theories. Sure it’s nice thinking of an exact set of rules to live by that fall under one of the theories or you just do what you feel is right on a daily basis. The idea of having a specific set of rules is a great idea but in practice there will never be a perfect set of rules that can be used in all situations.
We read about and discuss on the forums all these different topics like we are ever going to answer correctly. It’s not as simple as right and wrong. People will react or act in a certain way based solely on the circumstance they are in at the time. People in general only do things that benefit themselves in some way. People rarely do what’s right when it puts their interests on the line. I think with this being said having a set what’s right and what’s wrong doesn’t really solve the problem.
So far these readings have made me question some of my initial beliefs on the topic of what is moral and what is ethical. Are they going to make me change my ways? Probably not, but having a better understanding of the different topics and ideas I think will help me in making better choices in the future.
Another section of chapter 3 that grabbed my interest was on the case: Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. in 1984. I just sat back and thought about the consequences that could have come from that decision had it gone the other way. No video recording. No need to improve that technology further. Had that decision gone in favor of banning that technology I think this would be an entirely different conversation.
The readings that I did not find very interesting/ thought provoking are those for chapter 2 of the Tavani textbook on the ethical theories. Sure it’s nice thinking of an exact set of rules to live by that fall under one of the theories or you just do what you feel is right on a daily basis. The idea of having a specific set of rules is a great idea but in practice there will never be a perfect set of rules that can be used in all situations.
We read about and discuss on the forums all these different topics like we are ever going to answer correctly. It’s not as simple as right and wrong. People will react or act in a certain way based solely on the circumstance they are in at the time. People in general only do things that benefit themselves in some way. People rarely do what’s right when it puts their interests on the line. I think with this being said having a set what’s right and what’s wrong doesn’t really solve the problem.
So far these readings have made me question some of my initial beliefs on the topic of what is moral and what is ethical. Are they going to make me change my ways? Probably not, but having a better understanding of the different topics and ideas I think will help me in making better choices in the future.
Blog #1: Intellectual properties
Alright, this is my first of my three required blog posts for the semester! Over the course of the first few weeks of the semester we have been discussing the general ethics involved in the cyber world and how it has been evolving ever since the boom of new age technology.
This weeks most recent discussion was on the ethical questions related to internet copyright laws and the grounds of moral right and wrong. I found this topic to be the important as it is a worldwide issue that is currently the center of attention in most of the technology world. The topic of internet copyright laws have been most recently discussed in relations to major bills such as SOPA and PIPA, both of which due to large opposition were shelved for future review. Those two bills which in their perspective chambers were supported by many legislators and their backers at the start of the their existence but when more thought and exploration into just what they were designed to do, they lost momentum and further more lost a lot of support.
Before I go on to say what was both good and bad about these bills, I want to explain what they said and what they would do. In general the two bills were essentially the same thing so as to save space and not to bore I will do a general overage of them combined. SOPA(Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA(Protect Intellectual Property Act) were designed to create stricter laws on stealing and misuse of private properties on the internet. Now for the how; both acts essentially operate upon the same basis and that is to essentially remove offending websites from the DNS(Domain Name System). For those unfamiliar the DNS is essentially a giant structure which houses all the visible web address names, such as "Google.com" and "Facebook.com" and in this structure it attaches these visible names to their respective IP address. So by removing these websites from the DNS the websites named address would disappear but the IP address and the website it self would still exist. This process would be done by submitting a complaint with any federal court in which the person or people submitting the complaint only have to show that a website is violating a known copyright and the court would order the address be removed from the DNS.
So now that we know what the two bills do lets discuss why they are bad. I already hinted at the first reason why the two laws are bad and its very simple, its because they wont work. The two bills do not shut down and do not remove any infringing materials they simply hide them. By removing the websites named address from the DNS you remove the ease of access as you would no longer be able to just type in google.com for example, you would have to type in the sites IP address which is not much harder just not that easy to remember. So the two acts do nothing but hide the offending websites from those who are too lazy to find the IP but for the most part would have no effect on the majority and the copyright infringement would continue.
The second reason why these two acts are bad is because it would cause a great deal of new work and costs to companies who run websites. The reason being is that in order to ensure your website was not removed from the DNS you would be required to filter everything on your website and for websites like youtube and facebook the required work and cost to the companies to try and do this would be extreme to near impossible. These two bills combined would shut down almost all of the major corporations who run websites and depend on them for income in the United States, such companies employ millions and in this economy adding extra unemployed citizens would not be the smartest move to make. Those two key points are the main reasons as to why both bills were widely rejected.
Now for the good, You must be wondering how can there be any good from something like this. Well I personally view the introduction of these two acts to be a greater good for the simple reason that if it had not been for these two acts the majority of citizens in the United States would have never know what the media industries were trying to do. We would never had people like Clay Shirky talking to people about how we need to protect our freedoms on the internet and also we would have not seen how warped some of our legislators views on personal freedoms are.
As a closing thought, I don't want to portray a feeling that I'm against protecting people's intellectual property I just feel like it needs to be done in the correct manner and that it needs to be done delicately. The first step to ensuring everyone's needs including the American people, is to get everyone one involved in the discussion. I feel like the past few weeks have been an eye opener to a lot of people but there is still a lot of people who just don't know, so it's up to those of us that are informed to let everyone we know about it.
This weeks most recent discussion was on the ethical questions related to internet copyright laws and the grounds of moral right and wrong. I found this topic to be the important as it is a worldwide issue that is currently the center of attention in most of the technology world. The topic of internet copyright laws have been most recently discussed in relations to major bills such as SOPA and PIPA, both of which due to large opposition were shelved for future review. Those two bills which in their perspective chambers were supported by many legislators and their backers at the start of the their existence but when more thought and exploration into just what they were designed to do, they lost momentum and further more lost a lot of support.
Before I go on to say what was both good and bad about these bills, I want to explain what they said and what they would do. In general the two bills were essentially the same thing so as to save space and not to bore I will do a general overage of them combined. SOPA(Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA(Protect Intellectual Property Act) were designed to create stricter laws on stealing and misuse of private properties on the internet. Now for the how; both acts essentially operate upon the same basis and that is to essentially remove offending websites from the DNS(Domain Name System). For those unfamiliar the DNS is essentially a giant structure which houses all the visible web address names, such as "Google.com" and "Facebook.com" and in this structure it attaches these visible names to their respective IP address. So by removing these websites from the DNS the websites named address would disappear but the IP address and the website it self would still exist. This process would be done by submitting a complaint with any federal court in which the person or people submitting the complaint only have to show that a website is violating a known copyright and the court would order the address be removed from the DNS.
So now that we know what the two bills do lets discuss why they are bad. I already hinted at the first reason why the two laws are bad and its very simple, its because they wont work. The two bills do not shut down and do not remove any infringing materials they simply hide them. By removing the websites named address from the DNS you remove the ease of access as you would no longer be able to just type in google.com for example, you would have to type in the sites IP address which is not much harder just not that easy to remember. So the two acts do nothing but hide the offending websites from those who are too lazy to find the IP but for the most part would have no effect on the majority and the copyright infringement would continue.
The second reason why these two acts are bad is because it would cause a great deal of new work and costs to companies who run websites. The reason being is that in order to ensure your website was not removed from the DNS you would be required to filter everything on your website and for websites like youtube and facebook the required work and cost to the companies to try and do this would be extreme to near impossible. These two bills combined would shut down almost all of the major corporations who run websites and depend on them for income in the United States, such companies employ millions and in this economy adding extra unemployed citizens would not be the smartest move to make. Those two key points are the main reasons as to why both bills were widely rejected.
Now for the good, You must be wondering how can there be any good from something like this. Well I personally view the introduction of these two acts to be a greater good for the simple reason that if it had not been for these two acts the majority of citizens in the United States would have never know what the media industries were trying to do. We would never had people like Clay Shirky talking to people about how we need to protect our freedoms on the internet and also we would have not seen how warped some of our legislators views on personal freedoms are.
As a closing thought, I don't want to portray a feeling that I'm against protecting people's intellectual property I just feel like it needs to be done in the correct manner and that it needs to be done delicately. The first step to ensuring everyone's needs including the American people, is to get everyone one involved in the discussion. I feel like the past few weeks have been an eye opener to a lot of people but there is still a lot of people who just don't know, so it's up to those of us that are informed to let everyone we know about it.
Blog Post 1 - Daniel Wahlstrand
The section of this weeks readings that impacted me the most was Tavani's piece on Creative Commons. CC seems to have successfully reached a comfortable middle-ground between copyright protection and sharing information. The four options they provide for each license says it all (Tavani, 259).
On further inspection, I believe an argument can me made that Creative Commons may have successfully co-aligned the three philosophical foundations for intellectual property rights. The aspect of being paid for one's work is respected, CC's policies promotes social utility, and freedom of expression is protected (Tavani, 249).
Overall I have gained the most information from the intellectual property readings. I record music on my own off and on, but have never officially published anything. I now have a better fundamental understanding of how to go about doing this and how to properly copyright my music.
- Attribution - Permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and/or derived works as long as credit is given.
- Noncommercial - Permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and/or derived works as long as it is used non-commercially.
- Derivative - Permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies. No derivatives.
- Share alike - Permits others to distribute derived works only under an identical license.
On further inspection, I believe an argument can me made that Creative Commons may have successfully co-aligned the three philosophical foundations for intellectual property rights. The aspect of being paid for one's work is respected, CC's policies promotes social utility, and freedom of expression is protected (Tavani, 249).
Overall I have gained the most information from the intellectual property readings. I record music on my own off and on, but have never officially published anything. I now have a better fundamental understanding of how to go about doing this and how to properly copyright my music.
Reflection Blog 1
So far, the assigned readings have provided a general
overview of the ethical issues that we face with information technology, as
well as theories that can be used to evaluate these issues. With the advances
in technology, the digital world definitely brings rise to many ethical issues.
While the introduction to the online world has provided many advantages,
including additional ways to communicate and collaborate and more accessible
tools and services, it also opens the door to a completely different category
of ethical issues.
As I read through the chapters, I found it hard to construct
a solid opinion on many of the ethical issues discussed. Instead, I found
myself constantly changing my mind on what I thought was right or wrong. One
topic in particular was on the disputes concerning intellectual property, or
even more specifically, the discussion of downloading copyrighted music from
the internet. As with all ethical issues, I feel like there is more than one
way to view the situation, therefore making it difficult to take one side. The
argument that the software industry provided seems too logical to not be valid.
The argument that I am referring to is:
PREMISE 1.
Stealing a tangible object is morally wrong.
PREMISE 2. Making
an unauthorized copy of proprietary software is identical to stealing a
tangible object.
CONCLUSION.
Making unauthorized copies of proprietary software is morally wrong.
(Tavani, p. 233)
Although I think it is a valid argument, it is still hard to
consider both situations to be of the same severity. When I asked my roommates
for their opinions on the matter, their responses also seemed to vary.
Another thing that I read, which I found a little shocking,
was the actions that the recording industry took in an attempt to stop unauthorized
sharing of copyrighted music files online. Tavani states, “One way it [the recording
industry] fought back was by uploading corrupted music files onto the popular
P2P sites, so that users downloading these files would be discouraged from
downloading music from those sites” (Tavani, p. 239). I found it a little shocking
that the recording industry would handle the situation in such a way.
Blog 1 - Tricia McCuen
Looking at more than one side of ethical situations from Ess, Tavani and our discussion boards helps me look at things differently than just having the text pose an open ended question leaving me to ponder what I think fits best. I can take more from learning more than one viewpoint. Reading the scenarios and applying theory to them is invaluable.
This week the discussion boards and the readings really hit home on choices that you make on the internet on leveraging things for free. I will think, observe my family’s decisions, and share information more in hopes of providing more context behind getting music and movies from people and places we shouldn’t!
I know that there are IP breaches in my company and we make employees sign an agreement when they start and when taking a promotion they need to sign a new one. There are times that we will investigate and IP issue years after an employee leaves and having that document is a significant part of our case. I would like to learn more about our IP cases – are they from a technological compromise or physical/verbal theft.
Discussion that I have had with peers, family and friends regarding ethics comes up often and in regards to this class we discuss cyber bullying, downloading information, and challenging each other’s feelings on what is right and wrong. The other thing that is a common hmmmm would be the cross cultural differences and how to begin to look at what that looks like to us in our everyday lives.
Learning about ethical theories such as the utilitarianism and deontology frameworks are at the very core for understanding how someone relates to an ethical situation. Both are discussed in depth in Ess, Ch. 6 and Tavani, Ch. 2. In my opinion, we will see more of Moor’s Just-Consequentialist Theory to help societies explore how to reach common understandings by using “deliberate and select” steps in the future (Tavani, 70).
Creative Commons is intriguing to me. I think I get the concept but how it can be enforced and paying another party to manage it isn’t something that I am sold on. Is it sustainable? (Ess 77; Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/about)
Ess talks about the photocopied version of a book he received from his students in Thailand as a sign of respect for both the author and to him and the way they personalized the cover reflects not only consequentialist reasoning in our society, but the Confucian tradition in the students society (Ess, 85). That is a great take away on what we need to learn to deal with in ethics within a global society.
Post 1
As I progress in the reading, it has had me focus in on a lot is the different situations that are present in ethical issues with technology. One idea that stood out to me was Tavani’s argument that we need ethical theories on page 53. That was the hardest thing to think about so far in the class. Though I believe that it could be useful to base ideas off these theories, I think it’s hard to have a basis when it comes to theories. On top of this how much cultures view morals and what is ethically wrong so differently, it is hard to set a middle ground.
I feel that learning about different point of views has given me more to think about. In the discussion different ideas have been mention to show how cultures are so different. One person talked about how suicide could be seen as honorable as a sacrifice. That is crazy because of how negative it is looked upon in the United States. Then we read about how in Asia it isn’t illegal to pirate and how bad it is here. Off that idea, I think that taking something from a culture where it is free should be seen as a loophole because technology there it is fine and we are not in charge of the world.
I do think it makes me think about pirate as being more wrong. It has made me think about it more in a negative way, but at the same time has made me think it is less stealing then causing the artist or producer to gain more money. I still do believe that stealing an actual cd is worse because you are stealing a product that was bought, the cd and case, and not making them directly lose money. With that idea, how is it when you copy a file you get more of a penalty. So in relating this to life, I feel that I have learned the different ways to take the idea of what is ethically right. Also to not judge others and from that reading think it is more wrong to judge off what ours says. We need to remember just because we have laws doesn’t mean we know the answers.
I feel that learning about different point of views has given me more to think about. In the discussion different ideas have been mention to show how cultures are so different. One person talked about how suicide could be seen as honorable as a sacrifice. That is crazy because of how negative it is looked upon in the United States. Then we read about how in Asia it isn’t illegal to pirate and how bad it is here. Off that idea, I think that taking something from a culture where it is free should be seen as a loophole because technology there it is fine and we are not in charge of the world.
I do think it makes me think about pirate as being more wrong. It has made me think about it more in a negative way, but at the same time has made me think it is less stealing then causing the artist or producer to gain more money. I still do believe that stealing an actual cd is worse because you are stealing a product that was bought, the cd and case, and not making them directly lose money. With that idea, how is it when you copy a file you get more of a penalty. So in relating this to life, I feel that I have learned the different ways to take the idea of what is ethically right. Also to not judge others and from that reading think it is more wrong to judge off what ours says. We need to remember just because we have laws doesn’t mean we know the answers.
Kory’s First Blog Entry
So far the material in this class has come off as sort of sporadic to me. We’ve covered topics which almost seem fringe (cyber ethics) but also covered topics which hit very close to home, mostly referring to intellectual property. I would guess that most of the class will be able to relate to the material about intellectual property. I’d bet a fair number of us are younger, early twenties and have faced a lot of ethical decisions when it comes to how we obtain music, videos, etc. Well, I definitely find this area of the material to be not necessarily the most interesting but certainly the easiest to discuss simply because it’s had such a strong presence in my life.
When it comes to this week’s reading material, I found myself relating the text to how I've dealt with intellectual property over the years. When I was in high school seven years ago I felt no ethical qualms whatsoever against downloading anything. I recall showing a movie in French class before it was released in theaters. I didn't pay for anything, games, movies, music; no chance. Well, fast forward to the present and I’d say I've matured somewhat in that I feel that purchasing these things is more situational. I mentioned in a discussion post that I don’t feel it is necessary to purchase music that is decades old, but new emerging artists need the credit and income. I think whole idea is more complex than just right and wrong.
Tavani goes into detail about how we might view what is right and wrong when it comes to intellectual property. The common topic we discussed was what are the ethical implications of ripping a CD to a friend’s computer? Well, realistically speaking I think we are geared to find this action wrong because we are in a way depriving the owner of that material income. But what if the person had no intention of buying that album but now they like the artist so much they buy all of their material thereon out? Someone in the discussion made the point that they don’t feel it is wrong to not pay for material they did not plan on purchasing. I agree with this but also understand it is not feasible in society.
What I really comes down to is that there is no in between when it comes to the laws of intellectual property even if there may be with the ethics. It’s easy to say what is right and wrong but hard to enforce, they cannot just make it legal to not purchase I.P. because the person says they weren’t going to buy it anyway. Overall none of the material really changed my perspective but it did make me a bit more aware that there’s a lot of debate about the ethics of intellectual property.
When it comes to this week’s reading material, I found myself relating the text to how I've dealt with intellectual property over the years. When I was in high school seven years ago I felt no ethical qualms whatsoever against downloading anything. I recall showing a movie in French class before it was released in theaters. I didn't pay for anything, games, movies, music; no chance. Well, fast forward to the present and I’d say I've matured somewhat in that I feel that purchasing these things is more situational. I mentioned in a discussion post that I don’t feel it is necessary to purchase music that is decades old, but new emerging artists need the credit and income. I think whole idea is more complex than just right and wrong.
Tavani goes into detail about how we might view what is right and wrong when it comes to intellectual property. The common topic we discussed was what are the ethical implications of ripping a CD to a friend’s computer? Well, realistically speaking I think we are geared to find this action wrong because we are in a way depriving the owner of that material income. But what if the person had no intention of buying that album but now they like the artist so much they buy all of their material thereon out? Someone in the discussion made the point that they don’t feel it is wrong to not pay for material they did not plan on purchasing. I agree with this but also understand it is not feasible in society.
What I really comes down to is that there is no in between when it comes to the laws of intellectual property even if there may be with the ethics. It’s easy to say what is right and wrong but hard to enforce, they cannot just make it legal to not purchase I.P. because the person says they weren’t going to buy it anyway. Overall none of the material really changed my perspective but it did make me a bit more aware that there’s a lot of debate about the ethics of intellectual property.
Mashups and the Information Society
So far this semester I have been engaged with many different types of articles involving ethics within the technology world. But one of the most critical readings (/video) I got engaged with most was the documentary RiP! A Remix Manifesto that we got introduced to our class this week. I have personally always been a fan of mashups and have always been interested in seeing Girl Talk live. But what surprised to me the most was how this documentary's manifesto relates to Masada's predictions.
The first was that “culture past always builds on the past”(RiP!). Within Masada’s predictions he states that we are moving from the industrial age to the information age. So for us make this transition we need this new culture to build and learn for our past culture. If we don't we will be doomed to be stuck in the age we are trying to advance out of. RiP! mentions that society's support of things like Girl Talk's music will help decided if are new ideas for the information age will be decided by the public or the private domains (RiP!) This idea totally relates to Masuda's predictions about how we as a society need to decide as a whole what we want are common philosophy to be. But the manifesto also states that the “past always tries to control the future” (RiP!). So that is why its so important for society to come together as a whole and decided what we need to do. Because with out the support of everyone, we won't be able to change anything.
Following the manifesto's list, its also states how “our future is becoming less free” (RiP!). This is basically stating how companies and big corporations are controlling our future. They have become so powerful that they are able to “sway” politics for the “protection” of their material. They have helped create so many laws towards breaking copyrights so that they can continue to control society. Instead of trying to come to some agreement between society and their own beliefs. Masuda talks about how a new voluntary community will emerge that stands for everyone’s freedom. And tries to stop the past's control on the future.
In the end RiP! mentions how we need to break the pasts control on the past. Something that I learned is how Brazil is on the cutting edge of breaking this control. They have denied to follow any of the international patents that the past put on the world. The past saw this as an act of war but they saw it was an act of life. This is what we as a society need to follow. We need to share all of are data with each other like ideas, art and experiences. If we can do this we will have no problems advancing, as a society, successfully into the information age.
The first was that “culture past always builds on the past”(RiP!). Within Masada’s predictions he states that we are moving from the industrial age to the information age. So for us make this transition we need this new culture to build and learn for our past culture. If we don't we will be doomed to be stuck in the age we are trying to advance out of. RiP! mentions that society's support of things like Girl Talk's music will help decided if are new ideas for the information age will be decided by the public or the private domains (RiP!) This idea totally relates to Masuda's predictions about how we as a society need to decide as a whole what we want are common philosophy to be. But the manifesto also states that the “past always tries to control the future” (RiP!). So that is why its so important for society to come together as a whole and decided what we need to do. Because with out the support of everyone, we won't be able to change anything.
Following the manifesto's list, its also states how “our future is becoming less free” (RiP!). This is basically stating how companies and big corporations are controlling our future. They have become so powerful that they are able to “sway” politics for the “protection” of their material. They have helped create so many laws towards breaking copyrights so that they can continue to control society. Instead of trying to come to some agreement between society and their own beliefs. Masuda talks about how a new voluntary community will emerge that stands for everyone’s freedom. And tries to stop the past's control on the future.
In the end RiP! mentions how we need to break the pasts control on the past. Something that I learned is how Brazil is on the cutting edge of breaking this control. They have denied to follow any of the international patents that the past put on the world. The past saw this as an act of war but they saw it was an act of life. This is what we as a society need to follow. We need to share all of are data with each other like ideas, art and experiences. If we can do this we will have no problems advancing, as a society, successfully into the information age.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Blog Entry 1
These first four weeks have covered many topics that
students have been able to thoroughly and thoughtfully discuss. Several of these topics were the main
issues concerning ethics and digital media, ethical theories, and most
recently, intellectual properties.
In the very first chapter of Ess, I learned about the central issues involving ethics and digital media. Perhaps one of the most interesting things from this chapter was the idea of convergence and how “digital media bring together both traditional and sometimes new sorts of information sources” (Ess, 11). So, analog information is obsolete now. It is not a specific type of information…it is just information in general. Ess compares the idea of convergence to ethics and says that the new digital media has created new challenges that we never had to encounter with the traditional ethical issues (Ess, 11). Now, the former distinct issues are converging with areas that were never covered before (for example, digital music piracy). Before this chapter, I had really never thought about how things used to be in regards to analog media. The ethical issues that information professionals need to face today are certainly different than what they used to be.
We discussed utilitarianism and deontology. These two basic, yet very important, ethical frameworks are two topics that I had never heard of before. I know that I have a set of morals and principles that I hold to and consider important to myself; I never thought that I identified with one ethical theory. After reading this chapter as well as Tavani, I still cannot say that I identify with only one ethical theory. It surprises me to know that there are people who do adhere to one ethical theory and live by it. Tavani had many interesting things to say about moral systems and how to justify them. The Tavani readings helped to further explain the ethical theories that we learned about from Ess. We learned about different types of utilitarianism as well as deontological views. Explanation about why we need ethical theories was given in chapter two of Tavani, and I gained a greater understanding of the importance of ethics. Tavani stated that, “An essential feature of theory in general is that it guides us in our investigations and analyses” (Tavani 53). I had previously thought of ethics as something that you needed to be in a “mode” for. Now, I understand that ethics are very much within us, and are something that we do automatically.
Perhaps the most interesting topic that we have covered so far is the issue of intellectual property and the intellectual commons. This section opened up my mind to the difficulties that are inherent to ethics and digital media. There are so many protections for intellectual property, and digital media has seemed to give those protections trouble. People are finding their way around copyright law or simply ignoring it, and disregarding the law in general. I particularly enjoyed reading about the different views that countries have on copyright law. It surprised me that, in many Asian cultures, it is considered a sign of respect to copy someone’s intellectual property. In these cultures, the people do not consider this copying theft. In the United States, we have a completely different view. Here, we place more emphasis on the individual than the community (Ess 77-78). Reading more about intellectual property has gotten me to seriously consider whether or not my occasional downloading of songs is wrong or not. I think I have become more aware of the different stances that cultures take on intellectual property and the consequences of intellectual property theft. I have been able to discuss much of what I have learned with my friends who are also students. Many of them have taken ethics classes, and it is nice to compare what they have learned with what I have learned.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Blog Entry 1 - Sara Duffney
So far, the readings that have engaged me the most are those
on intellectual property. It’s a fascinating subject, and it’s the first real
issue we’ve tackled so far in this course. I actually had the opportunity to discuss
it briefly with a friend. The friend said she likes to make copies of her DVDs,
one set for campus and one set for home. I mentioned I was in this class and
brought up that it is legal to make one copy of electronic material for
archiving purposes, and that many people like to make extra copies of their CDs
(for their cars, for example, in case of sun damage or theft). I told her I
didn’t think it was unethical at all and what she was doing isn’t considered
piracy or theft, since she purchased the DVDs and isn’t intending to
redistribute the copies. She was pretty relieved, and seemed surprised that
what she was doing wasn’t illegal. I think the millennial generation, having
grown up with illegally copied VHS movies and cassette tapes, almost expects
everything concerning copying, downloading, etc. to be illegal at this point.
While I have already contemplated this topic independently
of this course, I still learned quite a bit about the current laws around the
world, and how these laws are evolving with technology. I’ve always wanted to
come up with a grand solution to the issue, some new, inventive way of keeping
everyone happy. Our readings (and videos/articles) have been informative enough
that I think my arguments are stronger than before, and I’ve come to a much
better understanding of the way copyright is viewed around the world. Thailand,
the Confucian mindset and the Ubuntu mindset of sharing as a form of respect
(the author having inclusive rights rather than exclusive) was very
interesting.
My technology behaviors will not be changing, as I still
disagree with a few laws that are currently in place (and I’m not doing anything
I’d consider unethical). There were a few areas from the discussion this week
that surprised me: the general agreement that Open Source software is positive,
Microsoft preferring you pirate their software over anyone else’s, and the gray
area concerning copyright jurisdiction. In conclusion, I’m excited for the next
few weeks and the material we’ll be covering!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Who is Morris?
This is my Practice Prezi..
Its about me and me as a person. A couple personal thins I talked about were just an incite on who I am, just introducing myself to the class for this semester.. I hope you guys enjoy and if there's any feedback, please feel free to let me know.
Its about me and me as a person. A couple personal thins I talked about were just an incite on who I am, just introducing myself to the class for this semester.. I hope you guys enjoy and if there's any feedback, please feel free to let me know.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Practice Prezi - Dan Wahlstrand
Hello all!
My practice prezi-tation is a basic Windows virtual memory walk-through and tweak for Windows 7, which also works for Windows XP.
My practice prezi-tation is a basic Windows virtual memory walk-through and tweak for Windows 7, which also works for Windows XP.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Practice Prezi - Sara Duffney
Hello!
This is my practice prezi. It is a basic overview of politics in the Harry Potter series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)