IT ETHICS

Assignment 4: Apps and Privacy - An Ethics Case Study

· Write a report based on your argument visualisation created in Assessment  and the media article or case study you selected in Assessment . Use the title of the article/case study as the title of your essay, so that the lecturer knows which article you are analysing.

· Undertake further research about your chosen case and the ethical issue involved, to assist you in analysing and discussing it in your report. 

· Analyse the ethical issue applying the classical ethical theories, including utilitarianism, deontology, contract, and virtue. Your report should present well-reasoned arguments, logically leading to appropriate recommendations. 

· You should not introduce new arguments in your essay that were not contained in your argument visualisation, and your essay should contain all of the arguments contained in your visualisation.

· Write an overall conclusion that justifies your recommendations made in your report.

· Include a Reference list at the end of your work, using the correct APA referencing style, corresponding to in-text citations. The word limit for the essay is 1500 words +/-10%. Headings, citations, references and appendices do not count towards the word limit, but quotations do.

SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT

Word Count: 1321

N OTE: Introduction is absent in this sample, but you can write short paragraph to introduce t he case study.

Utilitarianism Perspective

According to the Utilitarian theory, an act is good if it benefits the maximum number of people (Kizza, 2014). From a utilitarian perspective, downloading or streaming TV shows, although a breach of copyright, could be viewed as morally permissible because the greatest number of people have gotten happiness. The promotion of happiness is fundamental to the Utilitarian perspective (Tavani, 2013. p.54). Utilitarianism struggles to paint copyright infringement as wrongful and looks to favour less copyright rather than more, and might even go as far as condoning copyright infringement (Hawthorn, 2012) as the majority of people achieve happiness from doing so, therefore they would not support the blocking of websites like the Pirate Bay.

However, just because something makes the majority of people happy, does not make it morally permissible, and morality should be judged not simply on whether it makes the majority of people happy. If you would not steal a movie from a store, why is it permissible to steal a movie online? The software industry faces billions of dollars in lost sales each year due to piracy and copyright infringement (Freeman & Peace, 2005). A utilitarian should also look at the benefit beyond the immediate consequence. Yes, breaching copyright to download and watch TV shows or movies would benefit the maximum number of people at present, the consequences in future could be less desirable (the excessive revenue lost each year means the industry will suffer), and therefore a utilitarian would have to consider that the best act might be to support the industry by blocking the websites that provide the content illegally.

Deontology Perspective

For a deontologist, an action is right or wrong in itself (Forester & Morrison, 2001) and pirating or streaming a TV show would always be immoral as a deontologist follows the same rules as everyone else – breaching copyright laws is illegal. If we ‘make exceptions for ourselves, we violate the principle of impartiality’ (Tavani, 2013), which is one of the main principles of the deontological ethical theory. Ross (in Tavani, 2013. p.59) believes we have a prima facie duties, which we must follow, such as honesty, benevolence, justice. A deontologist would always find piracy morally corrupt as it goes against these prima facie duties, and would support the blocking of websites to help curb piracy.

However, even though it seems that, from a deontological perspective, it is always wrong to take someone’s rightful property without prior consent, no matter whether it does them good in the end or not, what happens when we turn the tables on the copyright holders? Many of today’s copyright monopoly run afoul, treating the general public and consumers as means rather than ends (Hawthorn, 2012). Following that, everyone should have access to same content regardless of their economic status, and everyone should be treated fairly and not discriminated against because they have less money so you are not doing anything morally

wrong by sharing or viewing content, as access for everyone is the fairest action. Blocking websites does nothing to improve access to digital content and only forces people to look elsewhere for the content they are after.

Virtue Perspective

This ethical theory focuses on the belief that a disposition to do the right thing is more effective than following a set of principles and rules, and that people should perform moral acts out of habit, not introspection (Reynolds, 2015). As a virtue ethicist, you could argue that piracy of TV shows is acceptable as it isn’t really hurting anyone, it is only for your own personal enjoyment, so you have deemed it morally permissible. Another virtue ethicist however, may take a different view. They may believe that stealing and piracy are one in the same, and therefore not morally permissible under any circumstances. Both can be considered moral people, but have differing perspectives. Each could then argue for or against the blocking of websites to prevent piracy using these same arguments.

A major problem with the virtue theory is the difficulty of establishing the nature of the virtues, especially as different people, cultures and societies often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue (Mastin, 2008). The central consideration for virtue ethics is the character of the person (Dark, 2010) but does not take into account the various cultures and societies and the various character traits promoted and celebrated. In some countries software piracy is not seen as a crime, and these countries have a much higher percentage of piracy than countries like Australia and the United States (ChartsBin, 2011). In these countries, a virtuous person would not support the blocking of websites as they do not see piracy as a crime. In Australia, however, they would support this stance as a step in the right direction towards piracy prevention.

Contract Perspective

We live in a society that has laws which must be abided by, in order to live in harmony with others. If you break the rules, there is a negative consequence. This consequence serves as a deterrence to doing the ‘wrong thing’. For example, it is illegal to murder someone, to steal, to speed etc. A contract ethicist would use this rules and guidelines as their ‘moral compass’. If it is illegal, then it is not morally permissible. Therefore as, legally speaking, downloading a TV show is a violation of intellectual property rights, or copyright infringement (Barry, 2015), a contract ethicist would find it immoral, and in turn support the idea of blocking websites such as the Pirate Bay.

However, you are only obligated to behave morally when there are explicit rules or contracts in place (Tavani, 2013. p.62). If you were to say visit another country where there were no explicit laws against piracy, you might then find it morally permissible even though you had a different view before, because your motivation for morality was reliant on the explicit rules or laws. While the concept of intellectual property in Western culture makes it easy to claim that copyright infringement is unethical, in other societal or cultural norms, it is not seen as unethical (Freeman & Peace, 2005). Furthermore, in Australia, it has only just become a crime

to pirate digital content with the senate only recently passing anti-piracy legislation (Scott, 2015). Whilst the implementation of the new law is in its infancy, there may still be people unaware of the changes. However, now that an explicit contract (law) is in place, a contract ethicist would have to support the anti-piracy strategy.

Conclusion

The overwhelming conclusion is that piracy and copyright infringement is not moral or ethical, but does blocking these websites really help to prevent piracy? Whilst accessing content you have not paid for, might bring the majority of people happiness, it is not fair to the proprietary owners of the digital content or the entertainment industry in general. In this case, the fairest thing for all, would be to pay a fair amount for the digital content you would like access to, rather than pirating it. It is unlikely that passing laws against piracy or blocking websites, such as the Pirate Bay, will deter people from engaging in piracy. New websites are created daily to counteract this very problem, and some people will just go elsewhere to get the content they are after, regardless of any new consequences. We already have laws against copyright infringement, stealing and murder, but all of these things still exist in society. If someone has a strong inclination to murder, and you have banned guns, it won’t stop them from murdering someone, just force them to choose a different weapon. It is the same with piracy, they will just use a different website or a proxy to gain access to the content. However, there is evidence of piracy decreasing when content is made available to the consumer legally, for example, when available on Netflix (Scott, 2015). So, while new laws against piracy and the banning of websites, such as The Pirate Bay may reduce piracy numbers, the best and most effective solution would be to make sure everyone has access to the digital content in a convenient, affordable and timely way (not two months after it has already been released elsewhere). Then you are removing the need for piracy, and most people will then do the right thing.

Recommandation:

References: