Go slow with Net law - 4 views

• 
  #1 juliet huang on 26 Aug 09

   

  Article : Go slow with tech law
  Published : 23 Aug 2009
  Source: Straits Times
  
  Background : When Singapore signed a free trade agreement with the USA in 2003, intellectual property rights was a key issue for our country to resolve. A huge raid on the shops in Sim Lim Square was conducted, and the authorities are now looking into harsh enforcement laws to regulate the prevalance of illegal downloading in Singapore. The author argues that the authorities should think through this decision carefully because majority of those who download these materials are young adults, and this issue is not restricted to Singapore itself but it also happens in other countries. The author argues that it is the content providers, not the audiences who should be punished.
  
  Ethical problem :
  Firstly, this article has certain flaws. The author does not highlight the implications of punishing young adults versus content providers. It is not clear in the article why is the universality of the problem( it happens everywhere) an issue in creating a law. However, he concludes that the code of ethics should be practised by content providers, and not end users.
  
  Ethical question:
  
  However, I think this article raises a good ethical question. The assumptions, I think, are that young users might not understand the consequences of downloading illegal materials. However, if we argue that ethics is morally-based on a universal set of truths, then young adults should be liable for their actions. If we argue that the users are not at fault because they are not aware that they are committing a crime, should we then therefore, punish the parents of these young adults instead of the content providers because they did not instill such values or ethical principals? That is assuming, we follow Finnis's definition that the moral principal is that our choices are open to human fulfillment, or humanity whether in oneself or others must be respected.
  
  Following this train of thought, we could also argue that since ethics is the study of moral standards, it could be that the morals instilled a decade ago, and morals now are different : 20 years ago, our grandparents said that it is wrong to steal. Therefore, our parents do not steal. 20 years later, with rising costs of living, our parents say : Its ok to download. You are not hurting anyone directly. And it's free. You are benefiting yourself. Therefore, we 'steal". Should we then argue that implementing any sort of law or guide would be therefore inefficient because the basic core human goods might have changed? Although, of course, this might be difficult to prove.
  
  To make an educated guess : it could be that given the rise of mass media promoting a sort of selfish, goal-directed way to live, without caring about the world at large, values have changed, but our ethical guidelines have remained the same. Therefore our youth may feel, yes, it's ok to download but the authorities are taking a different standpoint. Therefore, I believe that if we appy duty-based morality here, we can then argue that policies are flawed because the maxim underlying the course of action can probably be transformed into a universal moral law : ie the maxim is, it's ok to download because the contents are there, it's free, and i SAVE. if we universalize it, it would be something like, it's ok to download if it helps you save money. How then can we correct such perceptions?
  
  In conclusion, I think that in order to enforce a law on intellectual property rights, it's not an easy clear-cut case of pointing fingers at someone. Rather, we should seek to understand the ethical guidelines of the people who download things illegal and find out where it does not correlate with the government's stand on IT rights. For example, some young artistes release their songs for free and deliberately let it be spread through file-sharing servers. For me, I feel that the message they send out is, yes, it is ok to download my music for free, because I can see why you want to download it for free just to sample the music. There is nothing wrong, or intrinsically bad about the ethics of your action. Therefore, I would be much more liable to buy their music later on, as there is no pre-judgement such as " downloading my music is BAD, whatever, and whenever" which turns people off and probably leads to a much more prevalent issue.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Article : Go slow with tech law <br /> Published : 23 Aug 2009 <br /> Source: Straits Times <br /> <br /> Background : When Singapore signed a free trade agreement with the USA in 2003, intellectual property rights was a key issue for our country to resolve. A huge raid on the shops in Sim Lim Square was conducted, and the authorities are now looking into harsh enforcement laws to regulate the prevalance of illegal downloading in Singapore. The author argues that the authorities should think through this decision carefully because majority of those who download these materials are young adults, and this issue is not restricted to Singapore itself but it also happens in other countries. The author argues that it is the content providers, not the audiences who should be punished. <br /> <br /> Ethical problem : <br /> Firstly, this article has certain flaws. The author does not highlight the implications of punishing young adults versus content providers. It is not clear in the article why is the universality of the problem( it happens everywhere) an issue in creating a law. However, he concludes that the code of ethics should be practised by content providers, and not end users. <br /> <br /> Ethical question: <br /> <br /> However, I think this article raises a good ethical question. The assumptions, I think, are that young users might not understand the consequences of downloading illegal materials. However, if we argue that ethics is morally-based on a universal set of truths, then young adults should be liable for their actions. If we argue that the users are not at fault because they are not aware that they are committing a crime, should we then therefore, punish the parents of these young adults instead of the content providers because they did not instill such values or ethical principals? That is assuming, we follow Finnis's definition that the moral principal is that our choices are open to human fulfillment, or humanity whether in oneself or others must be respected. <br /> <br /> Following this train of thought, we could also argue that since ethics is the study of moral standards, it could be that the morals instilled a decade ago, and morals now are different : 20 years ago, our grandparents said that it is wrong to steal. Therefore, our parents do not steal. 20 years later, with rising costs of living, our parents say : Its ok to download. You are not hurting anyone directly. And it's free. You are benefiting yourself. Therefore, we 'steal". Should we then argue that implementing any sort of law or guide would be therefore inefficient because the basic core human goods might have changed? Although, of course, this might be difficult to prove. <br /> <br /> To make an educated guess : it could be that given the rise of mass media promoting a sort of selfish, goal-directed way to live, without caring about the world at large, values have changed, but our ethical guidelines have remained the same. Therefore our youth may feel, yes, it's ok to download but the authorities are taking a different standpoint. Therefore, I believe that if we appy duty-based morality here, we can then argue that policies are flawed because the maxim underlying the course of action can probably be transformed into a universal moral law : ie the maxim is, it's ok to download because the contents are there, it's free, and i SAVE. if we universalize it, it would be something like, it's ok to download if it helps you save money. How then can we correct such perceptions? <br /> <br /> In conclusion, I think that in order to enforce a law on intellectual property rights, it's not an easy clear-cut case of pointing fingers at someone. Rather, we should seek to understand the ethical guidelines of the people who download things illegal and find out where it does not correlate with the government's stand on IT rights. For example, some young artistes release their songs for free and deliberately let it be spread through file-sharing servers. For me, I feel that the message they send out is, yes, it is ok to download my music for free, because I can see why you want to download it for free just to sample the music. There is nothing wrong, or intrinsically bad about the ethics of your action. Therefore, I would be much more liable to buy their music later on, as there is no pre-judgement such as " downloading my music is BAD, whatever, and whenever" which turns people off and probably leads to a much more prevalent issue.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top