Ethics for the Information Age Chapter 4 PDF

Ethics for the Information Age Eighth Edition Chapter 4 Intellectual Property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Learning Objectives (1...

Ethics for the Information Age Eighth Edition Chapter 4 Intellectual Property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Learning Objectives (1 of 2) 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Intellectual property rights 4.3 Protecting intellectual property 4.4 Fair use 4.5 Digital media Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Learning Objectives (2 of 2) 4.6 Peer-to-peer networks and cyberlockers 4.7 Protections for software 4.8 Legitimacy of intellectual property protection for software 4.9 Open-source software 4.10 Creative Commons Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.1 Introduction Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Information Technology Changing Intellectual Property Landscape We benefit from access to high-quality television shows, music, movies, computer programs Value of intellectual properties much greater than cost of media Illegal copying pervasive Internet allows copies to spread quickly and widely In light of advances in information technology, how should we treat intellectual property? Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright Laws and File Sharing The Electronic Frontier Foundation is advocating a reform of the copyright laws in the United States. (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.2 Intellectual Property Rights Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved What Is Intellectual Property? Definition*: Intellectual Property (IP) refers to creations of the mind – Inventions – Literary and artistic works – Symbols, names, images used in commerce Intellectual property  physical manifestation Does right to own property extend to intellectual property? * World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Property Rights Locke: The Second Treatise of Government People have a right… – to property in their own person – to their own labor – to things which they remove from Nature through their labor As long as… – nobody claims more property than they can use – after someone removes something from common state, there is plenty left over Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Locke’s Notion of Property Rights According to John Locke, people have a natural right to the things they have removed from Nature through their own labor. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Expanding the Argument to Intellectual Property Writing a play akin to making a belt buckle Making a belt buckle – Mine ore – Smelt it down – Cast it Writing a play – “Mine” words from English language – “Smelt” them into prose – “Cast” them into a complete play Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analogy Is Imperfect If Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare simultaneously write down Hamlet, who owns it? If Ben “steals” the play from Will, both have it These paradoxes weaken the argument for a natural right to intellectual (Ben Jonson: Walker Art Library/Alamy; Shakespeare: Classic Image/Alamy) property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection Some people are altruistic; some are not Allure of wealth can be an incentive for speculative work Authors of U S Constitution recognized benefits to limited intellectual property protection Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Limits to Intellectual Property Protection Giving creators rights to their inventions stimulates creativity Society benefits most when inventions in public domain U S Congress has struck compromise by giving authors and inventors rights for a limited time Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Prices Fall When Works Become Public Domain Previous Year Became Purchase Artist Work Rental Fee Public Domain Price Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 1 $450.00 1987 $155.00 Ravel Mother Goose Suite 540.00 1988 70.00 Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 2 540.00 1989 265.00 Griffes The White Peacock 335.00 1993 42.00 Puccini O Mio Babbino Caro 252.00 1994 26.00 Respighi Fountains of Rome 441.00 1994 140.00 Ravel Le Tombeau de Couperin 510.00 1995 86.00 Respighi Ancient Aires and Dances Suite no. 1 441.00 1996 85.00 Elgar Cello Concerto 550.00 1997 140.00 Holst The Planets 815.00 1997 300.00 Ravel Alborada Del Gracioso 360.00 1999 105.00 Table from “Letter to The Honorable Senator Spencer Abraham,” by Randolph P. Luck from Luck’s Music Library. (Copyright © 1996 by Randolph P. Luck. Reprinted with permission.) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Trade Secret Confidential piece of intellectual property that gives company a competitive advantage Never expires Not appropriate for all intellectual properties Reverse engineering allowed May be compromised when employees leave firm Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Trademark, Service Mark Trademark: Identifies goods Service mark: Identifies services Company can establish a “brand name” Does not expire If brand name becomes common noun, trademark may be lost Companies advertise to protect their trademarks Companies also protect trademarks by contacting those who misuse them Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Trademarks and Service Marks Xerox Corporation ran this advertisement as part of its campaign to protect its trademark. (Screenshot by Xerox. Copyright © 2012 by Xerox Corporation. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Patent A public document that provides detailed description of invention Provides owner with exclusive right to the invention Owner can prevent others from making, using, or selling invention for 20 years Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright Provides owner of an original work five rights – Reproduction – Distribution – Public display – Public performance – Production of derivative works Copyright-related industries represent 6% of U.S. gross domestic product (> $900 billion/ year) Copyright protection has expanded greatly since 1790 Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Key Court Cases and Legislation Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists – Columbia Artists Management Inc. held liable for copyright infringements of community concert associations it supported Davey Jones Locker – Richard Kenadek found guilty of violating copyrights of owners of software he posted on a computer bulletin board system No Electronic Theft Act – Made it a criminal offense to reproduce or distribute more than $1,000 worth of copyrighted material in a six-month period Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright Creep (1 of 2) Since the first Copyright Act was passed in 1790, both the length of copyright protection and the kinds of intellectual property that can be copyrighted have grown dramatically. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright Creep (2 of 2) Since 1790, protection for books extended from 28 years to 95 years or more Some say latest extension done to prevent Disney characters from becoming public domain Group of petitioners challenged the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, arguing Congress exceeded Constitutional power U.S. Supreme Court ruling – CTEA does not create perpetual copyrights – CTEA is constitutional Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Case Study: Database Guru Rajiv employed at Felicity Software Signed a confidentiality and proprietary rights agreement Developed some database optimizations Moved to Unrelated.com, supervises team developing database software Realizes his optimizations would help team at Unrelated.com Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Two alternatives for Rajiv “Clean room” strategy – Provide team with publicly available information – Provide team with performance targets Become personally involved – Ask team open-ended questions – Allow them to rediscover the optimizations he made at Felicity Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Kantian Analysis “Clean room” option – Rajiv does not violate agreement he signed – “You can share your expertise with others” is a rule that can be universalized – Morally right “Personally involved” option – If he does not asking leading questions, OK – If he asks leading questions, he is disclosing information and violating agreement he signed – Breaking a contract = breaking a promise → wrong – Is it reasonable to think he can avoid asking leading questions? Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Social Contract Theory Analysis Similar to Kantian analysis “Clean room” option – Rajiv helps team without violating an agreement – This is OK “Personally involved” option – If he can avoid disclosing information, OK – If he gets impatient and discloses information, not OK Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Act-Utilitarian Analysis (1 of 4) Quantify consequences of each option in dollars Time horizon: 5 years Affected parties – Rajiv: Income over next five years – Unrelated.com ▪ Lost income due to delay in releasing product ▪ Expected costs associated with potential litigation Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Act-Utilitarian Analysis (2 of 4) “Clean room” option Consequences for Rajib – Expects 10% raise, worth $15,000 – Total worth $75,000 over five years Unrelated.com – Six month delay costs the company six months’ revenue from its steady state – 50,000 customers × $10/month/customer × 6 months = $3,000,000 – No risk of litigation Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Act-Utilitarian Analysis (3 of 4) “Ask right questions” option Unrelated.com – Three month delay costs the company six months’ revenue from its steady state, or $1,500,000 – Litigation risk 6.25% and cost $5,000,000, so expected loss $5,000,000 ×.0625 = $312,500 Rajiv – If no litigation, 15% raise, worth $112,500 over 5 years – If litigation, get fired, lose $750,000 over 5 years – Expected outcome:.9375 × $112,500 −.0625 × $750,000 = $58,594 Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Act-Utilitarian Analysis (4 of 4) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Virtue Ethics Analysis “Clean room” option – Gives team opportunity to create a system that meets performance requirements – Rajiv shares expertise, insists performance goals get met, characteristic of a good engineer and manager “Personally involved” option – Working hard and sharing expertise are characteristic of good managers – Runs risk of violating confidentiality agreement, which is dishonest and not characteristic of good managers Prudent choice is “clean room” option Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Conclusion “Clean room” option better option according to Kantianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics “Personally involved” option better according to act utilitarianism, though a more risk-averse analysis would have resulted in “clean room” option being preferred Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.4 Fair Use Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Fair Use Concept Sometimes legal to reproduce a copyrighted work without permission Those circumstances called fair use To judge fair use, courts consider four factors – Purpose and character of use – Nature of work – Amount of work being copied – Affect on market for work Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Sony v. Universal City Studios Sony introduced Betamax VCR (1975) People started time shifting TV shows Movie studios sued Sony for copyright infringements U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that time shifting is fair use Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Time Shifting The Supreme Court ruled that videotaping television broadcasts for private viewing at a later time is fair use of the copyrighted material. This practice is called time shifting. Using videotaped material for a commercial purpose is not considered fair use. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Digital Recording Technology Copying from vinyl records to cassette tapes introduced hiss and distortions Introduction of compact disc a boon for music industry Cheaper to produce than vinyl records Higher quality Higher price  higher profits But it’s possible to make a perfect copy of a CD Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 Protects rights of consumers to make copies of analog or digital recordings for personal, noncommercial use – Backup copy – Give to family member Digital audio recorders must incorporate Serial Copyright Management System (S C M S), so consumers can’t make a copy of a copy Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia M P3 compression allowed songs to be stored in 10% of the space, with little degradation Diamond introduced Rio MP3 player (1998) People started space shifting their music R I A A started legal action against Diamond for violation of the Audio Home Recording Act U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, affirmed that space shifting is consistent with copyright law Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Space Shifting Space shifting is the creation of a copy for backup purposes or for use in a portable device, and it is considered fair use. Making a copy for a friend is not considered fair use. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Kelly v. Arriba Soft Kelly: photographer who maintained Web site with copyrighted photos Arriba Soft: created search engine that returned thumbnail images Kelly sued Arriba Soft for copyright infringement U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, affirmed that Arriba Soft’s use of Kelly’s images was “significantly transformative” and fair use Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Authors Guild v. Google (1 of 3) Google announced plan to scan millions of books held by several huge libraries, creating searchable database of all words If public domain book, system returns PDF If under copyright, user can see a few sentences; system provides links to libraries and online booksellers Authors Guild and publishers sued Google for copyright infringement (copying books for commercial reasons) Judge ruled in favor of Google and dismissed lawsuit Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Authors Guild v. Google (2 of 3) Judge: Google Books is a fair use of copyrighted works Purpose and character: Purpose is to create a massive index – Character is highly transformative – Precedent: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation – Weighs in favor of fair use Nature of work being scanned: mostly nonfiction – Weighs in favor of fair use Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Authors Guild v. Google (3 of 3) How much being scanned: entire work – Weighs against fair use Effect on the market: stimulating book sales – Weighs in favor of fair use Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Mashups A v s B: instrumental track from one song + vocal track er us from another song Audio collage: create new composition from dozens of audio fragments Fair use? Lae suggests… – Audio collage: yes, because it is highly transformative – A v s B: no, unless “criticism, satire, or parody” er us Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.5 Digital Media Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Digital Rights Management Actions owners of intellectual property in digital form take to protect their rights Approaches – Encrypt digital content – Mark digital content so devices can recognize content as copy-protected Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Digital Millennium Copyright Act First big revision of copyright law since 1976 Brought U.S. into compliance with Europe Extended length of copyright Extended copyright protection to music broadcast over Internet Made it illegal for anyone to – Circumvent encryption schemes placed on digital media – Circumvent copy controls, even for fair use purposes Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Secure Digital Music Initiative Goals – Create copy-protected CDs – Secure digital music downloads Consortium of 200 companies developed “digital watermarking” scheme Failed – Internet copying became huge before SDMI ready – Some SDMI sponsors were electronics companies – Digital watermarking encryption cracked Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rootkit Millions of audio C Ds shipped with Extended Copy Protection, a DRM system Prevented users from – Ripping audio tracks into MP3 format – Making more than 3 backup copies Relied upon Windows “rootkit” that hid files and processes; usually only hackers use rootkits Huge public outcry once secret uncovered Sony B M G stopped production and compensated consumers Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Criticisms of Digital Rights Management Any technological “fix” is bound to fail DRM undermines fair use DRM could reduce competition Some schemes make anonymous access impossible Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Online Music Stores Drop Digital Rights Management (1 of 2) When iTunes Music Store opened in 2003, all music protected with a DRM scheme called FairPlay FairPlay blocked users from freely exchanging purchased music Songs couldn’t be played on more than 5 different computers Songs couldn’t be copied onto CDs more than 7 times Songs purchased from iTunes Store wouldn’t play on non-Apple devices D R M-protected music purchased from other online retailers couldn’t be played on iPod Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved  Online Music Stores Drop Digital Rights Management (2 of 2) Consumers complained about restrictions associated with DRM European governments put pressure on Apple to license FairPlay or stop using DRM In 2007 E M I began offering all its songs without D R M through the iTunes store In 2008 Amazon reached an agreement with all four major music labels to sell DRM-free music Apple followed suit in 2009 Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Microsoft Xbox One Microsoft announced cloud-based gaming experience for Xbox One (June 2013) – User could play any game without disc in tray – Automatic software updates of every Xbox One Controversial features of licensing arrangement – Disc could be shared only once – Second-hand market restricted – Xbox consoles would have to check in every 24 hours Microsoft backtracked – No need to connect to Internet – Freedom to lend, rent, buy, sell discs – Disc must be in tray to play game Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Peer-to-Peer Networks Peer-to-peer network – Transient network – Connects computers running same networking program – Computers can access files stored on each other’s hard drives How P2P networks facilitate data exchange – Give each user access to data stored in many other computers – Support simultaneous file transfers among arbitrary pairs of computers – Allow users to identify systems with faster file exchange speeds Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Cyberlockers Also called file-hosting services or cloud storage services Internet-based file-sharing services Allow users to upload and download password-protected files Support workgroup collaboration Make sharing of copyrighted material easy Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Napster Peer-to-peer music exchange network Began operation in 1999 Sued by RIAA for copyright violations Courts ruled in favor of RIAA Went off-line in July 2001 Re-emerged in 2003 as a subscription music service Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved FastTrack Second-generation peer-to-peer network technology Used by KaZaA and Grokster Distributes index among large number of “super nodes” Cannot be shut down as easily as Napster Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved RIAA Sued Grokster, Kazaa April 2003: RIAA warned file swappers they could face legal penalties RIAA subpoenaed Verizon for identities of people suspected of running supernodes Judge ruled in favor of Verizon September 2003: RIAA sued 261 individuals December 2003: U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Verizon did not have to give customer names to RIAA Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Huge Jury Judgments Reduced Jammie Thomas-Rassert – Federal jury ordered her to pay $1.92 million – Damages reduced to $54,000 Joel Tenenbaum – Jury ordered him to pay $675,000 – Judge reduced award to $67,500 Does RIAA have to prove someone actually copied the songs that people made available on Kazaa? – New York decision: No – Massachusetts, Arizona decisions: Yes Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved MGM v. Grokster Entertainment industry interests sued Grokster and Stream Cast for the copyright infringements of their users Lower courts – Ruled in favor of Grokster and StreamCast – Cited Sony v. Universal City Studios as a precedent U.S. Supreme Court – Reversed the lower court ruling in June 2005 – Proper precedent Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved BitTorrent Broadband connections: download much faster than upload BitTorrent speeds downloading – Files broken into pieces – Different pieces downloaded from different computers Used for downloading large files – Computer programs – Television shows – Movies Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Concept Behind BitTorrent (a) Broadband Internet connections provide higher speeds for downloading than for uploading. (b) BitTorrent reduces downloading times by enabling a computer to download different pieces of a file simultaneously from many different peers. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Legal Action Against the Pirate Bay (1 of 2) The Pirate Bay started in Stockholm, Sweden One of world’s biggest BitTorrent file-sharing sites People download songs, movies, TV shows, etc. After 2006 raid by police, popularity increased In 2008 the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry sued four individuals connected with site Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Legal Action Against the Pirate Bay (2 of 2) Defendants said the Pirate Bay just a search engine Found guilty; sentenced to prison and fined $6.5 million Meanwhile, the Pirate Bay still operational More than 150 proxy servers all over the world Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved PRO-IP Act Gives federal law enforcement agencies right to seize domain names of sites facilitating copyright infringement Operation In Our Sites (2010) – Seized domain names of 10 Web sites making available full-run movies – Seized several hundred more domain names over next 1 ½ years Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Megaupload Shutdown Megaupload a prominent cyberlocker – Based in Hong Kong – More than 180 million users – Once the world’s 13th most popular Web site – Founder, Kim Dotcom, lived in Auckland, New Zealand 2012 – Cooperation between law enforcement agencies in U S, New Zealand, and Hong Kong – Shut down Megaupload – Arrested Kim Dotcom for violating PRO-IP Act Other cyberlockers responded by disabling sharing functionality Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Legal Online Access to Entertainment (1 of 2) Widespread piracy pressures companies to make “doing the right thing” as easy as “doing the wrong thing” – Major online stores provide safe, convenient downloads – Music without DRM Consumer shift toward music streaming – Ad-supported model: listeners stream for free (100 M) – Subscription model: listeners pay monthly fee (40 M) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Legal Online Access to Entertainment (2 of 2) Video streaming services: Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime Instant Video, Sling (40% of US homes) Good news / bad news about music streaming – Good news: consumers will pay if cost reasonable – Bad news: Much lower revenues for publishers compared to selling CDs Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.7 Protections for Software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Software Copyrights Copyright protection began 1964 What gets copyrighted? – Expression of idea, not idea itself – Object program, not source program Companies treat source code as a trade secret Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Violations of Software Copyrights Copying a program to give or sell to someone else Preloading a program onto the hard disk of a computer being sold Distributing a program over the Internet Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Important Court Cases Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer – Established that object programs are copyrightable Sega v. Accolate – Established that disassembling object code to determine technical specifications is fair use Oracle v. Google – Google’s copying of 11,500 lines of declaring code from 37 Java A P I packages was not fair use and violated Oracle’s copyright Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Safe Software Development Reverse engineering okay Companies must protect against unconscious copying Solution: “clean room” software development strategy – Team 1 analyzes competitor’s program and writes specification – Team 2 uses specification to develop software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Software Patents (1 of 3) Until 1981, Patent Office refused to grant software patents – Saw programs as mathematical algorithms, not processes or machines U.S. Supreme Court decision led to first software patent in 1981 Further court rulings led to patents being granted for wider range of software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Software Patents (2 of 3) Thousands of software patents now exist – Microsoft files ~ 3,000 applications annually – Licensing patents a source of revenue Secondary market for software patents – Patent-holding companies (a.k.a. patent trolls): Companies that specialize in buying patents and enforcing patent rights – Based on assumption that companies would rather settle out of court than spend time and money going to trial – RIM didn’t settle quickly; ended up paying $612 million Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Software Patents (3 of 3) Critics say too many patents have been issued – Patent Office doesn’t know about prior art, so it issues bad software patents – Obvious inventions get patents Companies with new products fear getting sued for patent infringement – Build stockpiles of patents as defense mechanism – Software patents used as legal weapons Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Key Differences between Software Copyrights and Software Patents Software Software Blank Copyright Patent What is protected? Software Object Program, process with screen displays practical utility Is getting protection expensive? No Yes Is getting protection time consuming? No Yes Is reverse engineering allowed? Yes No Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Smartphone Patent Wars (1 of 2) Nokia sues Apple, alleging Apple violated 10 of its patents (2009) Apple countersues Nokia for violating 13 of its patents Apple sues several Android smartphone makers – Accuses Samsung of copying “look and fee” of Apple iPhones and iPads, including rounded corners, tapered edges, use of a home button, and bounce-back affect when user over scrolls Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Smartphone Patent Wars (2 of 2) Samsung countersues Apple Escalates until more than 100 lawsuits filed by various manufacturers globally; billions of dollars in legal fees Smartphone makers agree to cross-license each other’s patents (2014) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank Decision: U S Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient for patent protection – there must be an “inventive concept” Many district courts and federal courts have cited Alice Corporation v. C L S Bank to invalidate hundreds of software patents Another decision, Williamson v. Citrix Online, sets a precedent for striking down patents that are “too broad and indefinite” Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.8 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection for Software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Do We Have the Right System in Place? Software licenses typically prevent you from making copies of software to sell or give away Software licenses are legal agreements Not discussing morality of breaking the law Discussing whether society should give intellectual property protection to software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Rights-Based Analysis “Just deserts” argument – Programming is hard work that only a few can do – Programmers should be rewarded for their labor – They ought to be able to own their programs Criticism of “just deserts” argument – Why does labor imply ownership? – Can imagine a just society in which all labor went to common good – Intellectual property not like physical property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Argument Why Software Copying Is Bad The chain of reasoning of a consequentialist argument for why copying software is bad. (Beth Anderson) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Utilitarian Analysis Argument against copying – Copying software reduces software purchases… – Leading to less income for software makers… – Leading to lower production of new software… – Leading to fewer benefits to society Each of these claims can be debated – Not all who get free copies can afford to buy software – Open-source movement demonstrates many people are willing to donate their software-writing skills – Hardware industry wants to stimulate software industry – Difficult to quantify how much society would be harmed if certain software packages not released Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Conclusion Natural rights argument weak Utilitarian argument not strong, either Nevertheless, society has granted copyright protection to owners of computer programs Breaking the law is wrong unless there is a strong overriding moral obligation or consequence Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.9 Open-Source Software Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Criticisms of Proprietary Software Increasingly harsh measures being taken to enforce copyrights Copyrights are not serving their purpose of promoting progress It is wrong to allow someone to “own” a piece of intellectual property Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Open-Source Definition No restrictions preventing others from selling or giving away software Source code included in distribution No restrictions preventing others from modifying source code No restrictions regarding how people can use software Same rights apply to everyone receiving redistributions of the software (copy left) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Beneficial Consequences of Open-Source Software Gives everyone opportunity to improve program New versions of programs appear more frequently Eliminates tension between obeying law and helping others Programs belong to entire community Shifts focus from manufacturing to service Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Examples of Open-Source Software BI ND Apache Sendmail Android operating system for smartphones Chrome and Firefox OpenOffice.org Perl, Python, Ruby, TCL/TK, PHP, Zope GNU compilers: C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved GNU Project and Linux GNU Project – Begun by Richard Stallman in 1984 – Goal: Develop open-source, Unix-like operating system – Most components developed in late 1980s Linux – Linus Torvalds wrote Unix-like kernel in 1991 – Combined with GNU components to make an O.S. – Commonly called Linux Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Impact of Open-Source Software Linux an alternative to proprietary versions of Unix Linux operating system on 97% of the world’s 500 fastest supercomputers (as of June 2014) Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4.10 Creative Commons Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Streamlining Creative Re-use Under current copyright law, eligible works are copyrighted the moment they are created – No copyright notice does not mean it’s okay to copy – Must contact people before using work – That slows down creative re-use Free Creative Commons license indicates – Which kinds of copying are okay – Which rights are being retained Flickr has more than 250 million photos available under Creative Commons licenses Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Creative Commons Screenshot from Creative Commons. Copyright © 2018 by Creative Commons. Reprinted with permission. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Summary (1 of 3) To stimulate creativity in the arts and technology, governments grant limited ownership rights to creators of intellectual property – Trade secrets – Trademarks/service marks – Patents – Copyrights Goal: Provide creators of IP with rewards while ensuring public has access to their creations Fair use doctrine an example of trying to find the balance between rights of IP holders and the common good – Time shifting – Space shifting Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Summary (2 of 3) New information technology has put pressure on IP laws – Digital representation of audio, video allows perfect copies – Broadband Internet allows quick and wide dissemination – Pirate Bay a prime example – Companies understand they must make “doing the right thing” as easy as “doing the wrong thing” – Now more convenient to get paid content through NetFlix, Hulu Plus, Apple iTunes store Intellectual property rights for software – Copyright protection less controversial – Patent protection highly controversial – Alice v. CLS Bank may be a turning point Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Summary (3 of 3) Open-source movement – Alternative to proprietary model of software development – Success stories include Linux, Android, Firebox, and OpenOffice Creative Commons – An effort to create a greater sharing culture in the arts – Allows copyright holders to indicate up front the conditions under which others can use their work Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning. Dissemination or sale of any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web) will destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work and materials from it should never be made available to students except by instructors using the accompanying text in their classes. All recipients of this work are expected to abide by these restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials. Copyright © 2020, 2017, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved