Search results

The RIAA v. Verizon case offers an opportunity to analyze the scope of an Internet service provider’s responsibility to help deter copyright infringement. In this case, the RIAA served Verizon with a subpoena requesting the identity of two users who were making available copyrighted recordings for downloading on peer‐to‐peer networks. The main axis of discussion is whether or not Verizon has a moral obligation to reveal the names of these individuals. Should Verizon cooperate with the RIAA or should it seek to shield the identity of these users in order to protect their anonymity and privacy? A secondary theme concerns Verizon’s prospective responsibility to curtail infringement. We will argue that Verizon and other ISPs have a limited obligation to assist copyright holders by disclosing the identity of infringers, but we contend that any prospective responsibility is constrained by law and technological capability.

The principal theme of this paper is secondary liability ‐ to what extent should we hold those who cooperate in wrongdoing and illicit behavior accountable? We probe this question by considering a lawsuit filed by the entertainment industry against the file‐swapping services of Grokster and StreamCast. Our focus is on the legal and moral implications of this case. We argue that the courts, which have so far ruled in favor of the defendants, have misapplied the socalled Sony precedent for two reasons. The business model of these companies depends on copyright infringement with advertising (and revenue) volume directly proportionate to the level of that infringement. Also, Sony’s safe harbor should not apply if there is active inducement of infringement. The key ethical question is the extent to which technological innovators must design and write their code to deal with infringement ex ante. We argue that purveyors of peerto‐ peer technology are formal cooperators in wrongdoing if they deliberately configure their system to enable the illicit copying of copyrighted music and movie files. We also consider the conditions for unjustifiable material cooperation, and propose these conditions as a normative standard especially relevant for software vendors.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of intellectual property justifications and the basics of intellectual property law.

The paper examines intellectual property rights, discussing such areas as: copyright protection, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and common and current misconceptions.

Overprotection can be as damaging as underprotection because of the harm to the intellectual commons. The ideal property rights regime is one that prudently seeks balance.

Advises that the goal of the legal system should be the provision of just enough protection to reward creative workers for their labor and to spur future innovation. At the same time, it is necessary to avoid overly strong protection that will deplete the intellectual commons or unduly restrict its expansion, and thereby fail to promote social welfare.

A series of CEO shake‐ups, re‐stated earnings and rising numbers of so‐called “trust violations” have all recently drawn attention to the ugly side of the business world which – when it surfaces – often has far‐reaching implications for those caught up in the wake. For while few businesses intentionally set out to operate unethically, the recent state of affairs in the USA in particular has raised searching questions about the fundamentals of corporate conduct.

According to its supporters open source software is more secure and reliable than proprietary code, and even tends to foster more innovation. Its technical superiority can be linked to the ongoing peer review process which typifies the open source model. In addition, programs such as Linux offer a potential challenge to the hegemony of Microsoft. Open source holds out the possibility of restraining platform leaders such as Microsoft from acting opportunistically. Some even argue that the open source code model is ethically superior to the proprietary model because of its transparency. Given these economic and social benefits, should government policy makers intervene, by tilting the playing field to open source programs? Would such government intervention truly be welfare‐enhancing? Before answering that question we note that some of the presumed technical and economic benefits of open source software are open to question. At the same time, the claims of moral superiority or social desirability are inflated and discount incentives necessary for software development. But even if this software were technically and morally superior, there is still no basis for government intervention. Our position is simple: the invisible hand of the market and not the visible hand of government should decide the fate of open source code. There is no identifiable market failure for the government to fix nor is there any plausible policy justification for giving open source software preferential treatment.

A key debate about the nature and role of ecommerce centres around the question of whether it is merely an old activity in a new form, or a discontinuous process that rewrites the ideas and assumptions of the ‘old’ economy. The objective of this exploratory and qualitative study is to shed some light on this issue through the lens of business ethics. We will examine whether established ethical principles still apply to e‐commerce, or instead if the ‘rule book’ now needs to be re‐written.

This research challenges the idea of an unconditional and positive influence of knowledge on performance without regard to environmental uncertainty. We focus on applied product quality knowledge spanning the supply chain (i.e. supplier, internal, and customer quality sources are considered). A survey of 208 manufacturing firms examined the moderating influence of product churning (uncertainty) and demand unpredictability on the association between applied product quality knowledge and firm performance. We also controlled for firm size and production technology. Firms that can determine a fit between their product quality knowledge application and the types of environmental uncertainty they face will perform better in terms of market and financial performance indicators.