Current Legal/Ethical Cases
From Baruchnewmedia
Contents |
Introduction
Intellectual Property (IP)
Intellectual property is any result of human intellectual activity. Examples include:
• ideas • scientific discoveries • inventions (Patents) • trademarks • works of art and literature (Copyrights) • scientific works • computer hardware and software • trade secrets
Although IP is in essence a right, it has many features of physical property - it can be rented, bought, sold or given away, but also stolen.
File Sharing
Ethical issues surrounding file sharing revolve around the question of whether it is morally right or wrong as opposed to legal or illegal. It has been established by various court cases that some file sharing activities, particularly the downloading and sharing of copyright material such as music are illegal. However, it can be contested that illegal behavior does not always constitute unethical behavior; it is illegal for a starving man to steal bread, but it is not unethical for him to do so. There are varying and opposing arguments on this issue. There are those who argue that illegal file sharing is unethical and detrimental to social order. There are also those advocates who claim that it is in no way unethical to download and share files considering its widespread popularity. As yet there has been no resolution to the ongoing debate over file sharing ethics.
File sharing as an Ethical Activity
Advocates of the ethical nature of file sharing present three primary assertions to support their point. Firstly, the activities are not wrong as the advances made in technology allow for illegal file sharing to occur. Secondly, the widespread and seemingly unstoppable nature justifies its existence as morally wrong behavior would not proliferate to the extent file sharing has. Finally, there is the view that preventing wealthy recording labels and artists from obtaining profits is justified by the fact that these entities are already ‘super-rich’. They see it as a Robin Hood-like activity, taking profits from the rich record labels and distributing the spoils amongst the people. These views are evident amongst many teenagers where only 15 percent of 13-17 year-olds think that downloading music is morally or ethically wrong (Rushworth 2005: pg1).
Of these three assertions the most common argument behind the ethical support for file sharing is that nobody besides the already affluent recording companies and artists suffer any consequences. However this opinion could change as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has commenced filing suit against individual file sharers who they contend are guilty of violating their copyright. While it remains ethically wrong to steal, an argument has been made that downloading copyright material is not stealing. Stealing consists of taking something from another person to the result that that person no longer has what was stolen. File sharing does not remove files form the original owner; they maintain possession of it.
File sharing as an Unethical Activity
Many of those who claim that file sharing is unethical base their argument in the idea that official society disapproval of wrongful behavior is essential to maintaining coherent values. They further assent that any behavior deemed illegal is consequently unethical as undertaking this illegal behavior undermines our social structure. Their ethical viewpoint suggests that legalizing unethical file sharing would open up the floodgates for the abandonment on the consensus on stealing the property of others.
There are explanations given as to why illegal file sharing is so widespread despite the disapproval of official society. One argument is that the stealing of intellectual property for personal use is not viewed in the same way as the stealing of material property. Some insist that despite this, intellectual property is nonetheless property and an individuals ethical responsibility to respect the property of others should apply.
Legal Cases
Cyberbullying Legal Cases
I. The Phoebe Prince Suicide Case
On January 14, 2010, after an entire day of harassment and taunting, 15-year old Phoebe Prince committed suicide by hanging herself in the stairwell leading to the second floor of the family apartment. She was a new arrival at South Hadley High School from a tiny seaside hamlet in County Clare, was mercilessly tormented by a cadre of classmates later dubbed the "Mean Girls" by Massachusetts newspapers.
The nastiness didn't end there. Even after her death, many vicious comments about her were posted on her Facebook memorial page, most of which were removed.
For months, community anger simmered that no punishment had befallen Phoebe's bullies. Petitions were signed and town hall meetings held. Phoebe Prince
Three of the nine Massachusetts teens charged in connection with the suicide of Phoebe Prince pleaded not guilty on April 6, 2010 through their lawyers.
II. MySpace Hoax: The Megan Meier Suicide Case
On October 16, 2006, Megan Meier died believing that a boy named Josh Evans hated her. He was 16, owned a pet snake, and she thought he was the cutest boyfriend she ever had.
Josh contacted Megan through her page on MySpace.com, the social networking Web site, said Megan’s mother, Tina Meier. They flirted for weeks, but only online — Josh said his family had no phone. On Oct. 15, 2006, Josh suddenly turned mean. He called Megan names, and later they traded insults for an hour.
The next day, in his final message, said Megan’s father, Ron Meier, Josh wrote, “The world would be a better place without you.”
Sobbing, Megan ran into her bedroom closet. Her mother found her there, hanging from a belt. She was 13 years old.
Six weeks after Megan’s death, her parents learned that Josh Evans never existed. He was an online character created by Lori Drew, then 47, who lived four houses down the street in this rapidly growing community 35 miles northwest of St. Louis. NY Times
Two years later, Lori Drew was found guilty of minor misdemeanor charges for her role in an online hoax that led to the suicide of her teenage neighbor. She was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers in a case that drew nationwide attention both for its novel use of a computer hacking law to combat alleged cyberbullying and for its tales of suburban neighborhood rivalries and teenage suicide.
However, the jury could not reach a verdict on a single felony conspiracy charge. Drew was acquitted of several felony counts of unauthorized access to computers in order to inflict emotional distress on 13-year-old Megan Meier.
Civil Cases
I. The People vs. Google Buzz
On February 17, 2010, a Florida woman, Eva Hibnick, filed a class-action lawsuit against Google Inc. It is said that the newly added social networking application, Google Buzz, in the popular G-mail email service violates the privacy rights of users and computer fraud laws.
Google Buzz is the company's attempt to make the flood of social posts, pictures and video easier to weed through, and to make it easier to find important information. Users can share links, photos, videos, status messages and comments organized in "conversations" and visible in the user's Inbox.
According to the class action complaint, "Google Buzz made private data belonging to Gmail users publicly available without the users' knowledge or authorization. Google has publicly admitted that its Buzz program presents privacy concerns, and Google has made several waves of modifications to the program. However, Google's modifications do not go far enough to address the problem. Furthermore, Google's actions have already caused damage because the Buzz program disclosed private user information the moment Google launched the service. The bell of breached privacy cannot be un-rung."
Hibnick is seeking unspecified damages and is asking the court to prevent Google from offering Buzz without "appropriate safeguards, default provisions and opt-in mechanisms".
In response, Google said it had tweaked the technology to address early privacy concerns just two days after the launch of Buzz. The company noted in a blog post that the modifications should make it easier for users to block access to their pages and also make it easier to find two different privacy features.
In her lawsuit, Hibnick called Google's tweaks to Buzz too little and too late.
Dan Olds, an analyst with The Gabriel Consulting Group, said that if nothing else, the lawsuit should serve as an eye opener for Google executives. Olds added that he doesn't foresee the lawsuit having a major financial impact on Google but it should bring more scrutiny down on the company and its privacy moves and policies. Buzz
II. The People vs. Facebook
A group of Facebook users filed a civil lawsuit on February 15, 2010 that alleges the social-networking site is violating California consumer privacy laws.
The lawsuit, which was filed in California's Orange County Superior Court on behalf of five users, seeks a jury trial, as well as damages and attorneys' fees. The five plaintiffs are described as two children younger than 13, a user of the original Facebook, a professional photographer, and an actress and model.
The 40-page complaint accuses the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company of violating California privacy and online privacy laws by disseminating private information to third parties for commercial purposes.
"Plaintiffs and the general public desire and expect a level of privacy, which Facebook has failed to satisfy under its current policies, procedures, practices, and technology," the complaint states.
A Facebook spokesman declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit other than to say, "We see no merit to this suit and we plan to fight it."
The plaintiffs' attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Facebook is no stranger to privacy controversy. In July, an investigation by Canada's privacy commissioner suggested Facebook is unconcerned with members' privacy and called on it to do more. Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart expressed concern that while it's easy for members to deactivate their accounts, it's less clear on how to actually delete them. Facebook could therefore retain member data from deactivated accounts for an indefinite period of time in violation of Canadian privacy law.
The social network went through a user backlash over the introduction of its News Feed in 2006, and a bigger one over the controversial Beacon advertising program. More recently, a revision to Facebook's terms of use prompted consumer advocacy blog The Consumerist to highlight language that it said meant that Facebook claimed ownership of user profile data and photos. Privacy Lawsuit Lawsuit
III. United States of America (For the Federal Trade Commission) vs. Sony BMG
The suit said that Sony improperly collected, maintained and disclosed personal information from thousands of children under the age of 13, without their parents' consent. The settlement equals the largest settlement ever for a COPPA case, the FTC said.
"Sites with social networking features, like any Web sites, need to get parental consent before collecting kids' personal information," said FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic. "Sony Music is paying the penalty for falling down on its COPPA obligations."
Sony Music requires users to submit a broad range of personal information, together with date of birth, in order to register for these sites, the agency said. On 196 of these sites, Sony Music knowingly collected personal information from at least 30,000 underage children without first obtaining their parents' consent, in violation of COPPA.
The sites also did not disclose that it would keep such information, and it did not disclose how it would use it, the FTC said. As a result, Sony must merge this information from its servers and link to FTC-sponsored online information awareness programs for the next five years.
As a result, on December 11, 2008, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Sony Music) has agreed to pay $1 million as part of a settlement to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the Commission’s implementing Rule. Civil Penalty Complaint
IV. RIAA vs. The People
On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers. The recording industry has now filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against well over 28,000 individuals, and there is no end in sight. While the strategy of forcing ordinary music fans to pay thousands of dollars to avoid even bigger RIAA-member lawsuits is itself troubling, many innocent individuals are also being caught in the crossfire.
If you have been sued or need actual legal advice, consider visiting the Subpoena Defense Alliance or contacting EFF -- we may be able to refer you to a lawyer or provide other assistance.
Below, we've provided a collection of resources that may be useful to music fans caught up in the RIAA lawsuit campaign and the lawyers who defend them. Start with the RIAA v. the People paper, which recounts the long, terrible history of the RIAA's legal campaign against music fans. You can also learn about how EFF has helped music fans stand up to the RIAA's overreaching claims in court, how EFF has defended P2P software developers and their right to innovate, and how EFF has fought for a better way forward that gets artists paid without fans getting sued.
Ethical Cases
I. MySpace Hoax: The Megan Meier Suicide Case
The Megan Meier Case also raised the issue whether lying about one’s identity on the Internet is now a crime. The verdict in the MySpace cyberbullying case raised a variety of questions about the terms that users agree to when they log on to Web sites.
MySpace’s terms of service require users to submit “truthful and accurate” registration information. Ms. Drew’s creation of a phony profile amounted to “unauthorized access” to the site, prosecutors said, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which until now has been used almost exclusively to prosecute hacker crimes.
While the Internet’s anonymity was used in this case as a cloak to bully Megan, other users say they have perfectly good reasons to construct false identities online, if only to help protect against the theft of personal information, for example.
“It will be interesting to see if issues of safety and security will eventually trump the hallmark ideology of free, largely anonymous or pseudonymous participation in cyberspace,” said Sameer Hinduja, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida Atlantic University. NY Times
