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!
No comments:
Post a Comment