Introduction
Throughout this course, as the name ‘Copyright and Social Media’ suggests, we have focused on the internet, technology, and various legal and ethical issues that arise from their use. At the crux of modern technology we see today, is the desire to share information and ideas. Peer-to-peer online file-sharing platforms, like Torrentz, UTorrent, and Napster, etc. have been mired in ethical ambiguity. These platforms have facilitated the widespread sharing of digital content, including copyrighted material amongst consumers, raising concerns about intellectual property rights violations. The increasing creative expansion of file-sharing technology in the world today facilitates immeasurable manipulation and redistribution of all the electronic content.
Online file sharing platforms gained popularity in the late 1990s, around the same time when consumers discovered platforms for downloading music illegally. Since then this unauthorised distribution of copyrighted content online has raised concerns about intellectual property rights violations. The advent of such technology has nullified the efforts of the recording industry to eliminate illegal file-sharing networks and their users. The recording industry cracked down on illegal file sharing, and labelled those engaged in unauthorized downloads as criminals and imposing mounting penalties. Despite these efforts, over 70 million people continue to indulge in online file sharing, with the majority of it being illegal.[1]
While legal unawareness does not exclude the violator from bearing the consequences of the violations, legal awareness of the consumers indulging in unethical file sharing is worth delving into. It is imperative to find answers to whether the growing participation in illegal downloads and copyright infringement connected to consumers’ knowledge of the law? Though researches show that most people understand the illegal nature of copyright infringement, majority continue to engage in unauthorized downloads, as they believe that their individual actions barely have any impact on artists. Professor Deborah Rhode cited in a survey which revealed that only 16 percent of individuals aged 16 to 28 years consider their actions of illegal downloads morally wrong. This survey indicates that the use of these platforms raises a much deeper question about consumers’ ethical decision-making.[2]
Since file sharing lies at the heart of all internet activities, this post takes a look at how different ethical ideologies prompt users to participate in such an activity, even when they know that their actions may be illegal at worst, and unethical at best.
The ethicality of online file sharing
The ethicality of file sharing technology is complex, with various ethical frameworks offered by different perspectives. The morality question lies with the consumers of these platforms. It is important to determine whether moral awareness even exists with the users, and secondly, if it does, then do the moral ideologies of the users have any bearing on the way they perceive and react to these platforms?
Idealism
An idealist focuses on an action’s inherent goodness, and then determines the ethical way around it. Idealists who are highly concerned with the welfare of others and the maximization of positive outcomes are more likely to recognize the ethical concerns associated with file-sharing platforms.[3] They may be inclined to refrain from engaging in activities that have the potential to harm the rights and interests of an artist.[4]
Formalism
A formalist would be more inclined to avoid using such platforms and abide by the formal laws and norms prohibiting the use of such platforms. Formalists primarily determine the morality of an action based on its conformity to the laws, rules and regulations thereunder.[5]
Social Consensus
A person whose decisions are influenced by social consensus would have a different take on online file-sharing platform. Such users justify their actions based on their judgement of the people they are surrounded by. Government’s action on these issues also has a major impact on the decisions of these individuals. For instance, countries like France, South Korea and Taiwan, where the government has imposed a ban on these technologies, most of the individuals in those counties are against piracy and infringement of intellectual property, however, in countries like India, where there is no explicit ban by the government, people usually do not condemn these platforms.[6] Research shows that bans also act as a deterrent for such illegal activities.
Deontology
A person who subscribes to this school of thought, believes in the rightness or wrongness of the act itself, regardless of the consequences of the acts. Thus, if one believes in the ideology of freeware, they would not find ethical issues in the online peer-to-peer file sharing platforms.[7] However, if they believe in the anti-piracy laws, they would be against the use of these platforms.[8]
Contractualism
A person who follows this school of thought believes that morality lies in agreement or contracts, including social contracts, as discussed by Hobbes and Rawls. Scanlon asserts, “An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement”.[9] There are two main types of contractualist theories: Contractarianism (by Hobbes) and Contractualism (by Kant). Contractarianism emphasises on self-interest contracts, meaning, contracts exist between individuals for their individual gain, and Contractualism is based on the concept of agreements among individuals who view everyone as equally free and deserving of moral respect. The ethical views differ between Contractarianism and Contractualism based on individual perspectives on online file sharing platforms. Users may support file-sharing platforms due to the benefits of free access, while artists may oppose them to protect their commercial interests.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarians are concerned with the greater good of the people. Thus, an increase in the overall utility of the people implies the morality of an action. A utilitarian’s judgement regarding ethicality of file sharing platforms would be based on whether they believe it serves the greater good of society, either through the free flow of information or the protection of intellectual property rights.[10] Their views on downloading a computer software would be different from those on downloading a song as they believe “software is usually sold for utilitarian purposes. Its usefulness to customers is more certain and can be evaluated. Music, however, is sold for hedonic purposes and customers care more about its experiential value”.[11]
From the above examination of various school of thoughts, it is clear that it is difficult to label online file sharing as ethical or unethical, as the morality of such platform depends on the ideology one conforms to and also on factors like “cultural environment, industrial environment, organizational environment, and personal experiences”.[12]
Conclusion
One factor that favours peer-to-peer sharing systems is the users ability to distinguish the services of these platforms from outright piracy. On file-sharing platforms, users share freely without making any financial gain. As a result, they do not view file-sharing itself as a criminal endeavour. Most users perceive these platforms as social spaces that enables them to share content and knowledge without having to make any commercial contributions that could harm the original artists.[13] While a lot of artists do not hold any qualms against such platforms as they serve as a means of expanding their reach and audience, some do condemn it openly. For instance, in 2015, musician Taylor Swift wrote an open letter to Apple as they were streaming her music for free and were not providing compensation to the artists.[14]
Additionally, many users believe that their individual access to the free content does not sabotage the original artists as they “still enjoy a high income and live a lavish lifestyle”.[15] Besides this, the anonymity offered by these platforms facilitates users further to indulge in activities they may not otherwise engage in. It is crucial to note that users recognise that the use of these platforms leads to infringement of intellectual property rights. Yet, they still view the usage of these platforms as moral. Essentially, the inherent illegal nature of the act does not influence their ethical evaluation of the morality of their actions.[16]
Posted by: Sharvani Mittal
[1] Delgado, R. (2004). Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing. Stanford Report, Stanford University. <https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html>
[2] Ibid.
[3] Henle, C., Giacalone, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219–230.
[4] Bateman, C., Valentine, S., & Rittenburg, T. (2013). Ethical Decision Making in a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Situation: The Role of Moral Absolutes and Social Consensus. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 229–240.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Shang, R., Chen, Y., & Chen, P. (2008). Ethical Decisions About Sharing Music Files in the P2P Environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 349–365.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Scanlon, T. M., (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[10] Wartenbe, M. (2013). Ethics of File Sharing – The Shallowness of Most Accusations. Pirate Times. < https://piratetimes.info/ethics-of-file-sharing-the-shallowness-of-most-accusations/>.
[11] Shang, R., Chen, Y., & Chen, P. (2008). Ethical Decisions About Sharing Music Files in the P2P Environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 349–365.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Digital Downloads. Ethics Unwrapped, University of Texas, Austin. <https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case- study/digital-downloads>.
[15] Shang, R., Chen, Y., & Chen, P. (2008). Ethical Decisions About Sharing Music Files in the P2P Environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 349–365.
[16] Ibid.
