My Digital Ethics Essay Example

ownership rights. Richard Stallman contends that if information is truly free, there would be no need for intellectual property rights or security measures. From this perspective, individuals have the freedom to modify the information as they please since no one can assert exclusive ownership over it.

In a world where the privacy and security of sensitive information, such as bank balances, medical records, credit histories, employment records, and defense information, can no longer be guaranteed, the value and reliability of this data decrease. Although it would be ideal to have unrestricted access to information in society, our community depends on accurate data from different sources like banks, financial institutions, credit bureaus, medical agencies, government agencies (such as the IRS), law enforcement entities, and educational institutions.

In an imperfect world, it would be morally incorrect if all information was easily available. Nonetheless, the hacker ethic suggests that hacking can reveal hidden security dangers. However, this perspective is flawed because security risks can be reported to authorities instead of resorting to hacking. Some argue that hackers who breach computer systems actually help users by uncovering security vulnerabilities.

Unlawful entry into a computer system is an unjustifiable action that cannot be morally justified, unless it is done for the excitement it brings to the hacker. In cyberethics, there is a notable ethical dispute regarding the downloading of P2P files. Himma and Tavani (2000) argue that certain individuals believe movies and music should be easily accessible online, aligning with the principles outlined in the hacker code of ethics. Once content is uploaded to cyberspace, it becomes readily accessible to all users.

The argument for utilizing

P2P networks to distribute copyrighted material is based on the concept that copyright functions as "economic censorship" by impeding the free exchange of information for economic reasons (Himma, Tavani pg. 555, 2000). The leader of Freenet's project strongly supports an anti-copyright model that relinquishes property rights in cyberspace. Supporters of downloading P2P files argue that they are not obtaining copies of copyrighted files but rather distributing them across the network.

Although sharing digital copies over a network may seem like unauthorized copying of copyrighted files, it is actually considered fair use. However, it is important to acknowledge that sharing information does not always benefit society as a whole. While there is a desire to share information, limitations must be imposed for the greater good. There are certain types of information that should never be shared.

The main concern is whether or not an intellectual work, such as a movie produced by Disney at a significant cost, should be shared without the creator and rightful owner's permission (Himma and Tavani pg. 559). P2P files are often downloaded easily with just a click, making it seem less like stealing due to the low chance of getting caught.

People are more likely to download P2P files than steal cars because stealing cars attracts a lot of attention and has severe consequences if you get caught. When downloading P2P files, there is no attention drawn to you, and you can do it comfortably at home without fearing any reprimand. Additionally, the frequency of P2P downloads has increased compared to earlier times when law enforcement tracked the IP addresses.

Law enforcement used to track and find

individuals downloading copyrighted material through their IP address. They would send a federal warning and, after multiple warnings, impose heavy fines or even jail time if additional incriminating evidence was found on their computer. However, law enforcement now acknowledges that it is impossible to track and apprehend every person downloading torrents. As a result, they are instead targeting the businesses and organizations that provide torrents. By filing lawsuits against them, law enforcement aims to force these entities to shut down their operations.

Although I acknowledge that the absence of repercussions for downloading torrents motivates people to do so without hesitation, I have ethical concerns about it. Nevertheless, I view it as a way to foster the exposure and exploration of various music genres. Without peer-to-peer file sharing, it would be challenging for new music to gain acknowledgment in the industry. Presently, artists depend less on CD sales and instead prioritize generating income from live tours across different regions worldwide.

Going on live tours allows artists to gauge the size of their fan base, which becomes valuable information when they release their next album. The fans who attend these live shows are more likely to buy and promote the album. Concerts generate higher revenue than album sales because fans are willing to pay extra for the chance to see their favorite artist in person. Additionally, artists earn a significant amount of money by signing with a record company to finalize their record.

Companies like Apple have embraced the dominance of MP3 format, which has overtaken CD sales as the primary way of acquiring music. They sell affordable songs through iTunes, and this trend

suggests that the music industry should also consider offering downloadable music. By adapting to the reliable platform of the Internet for purchasing popular items, the industry could potentially resolve this issue. Napster was a pioneering website that offered free song downloads.

Napster encountered legal issues with Metallica and Dr. Dre prior to being embroiled in another court case, A;M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. This lawsuit alleged that Napster committed various copyright infringements, such as direct infringement by its users, contribution to infringement, and vicarious infringement (N. D. Cal. 2000). Consequently, Napster discontinued its operations in 2001 and agreed to a settlement of twenty-six million dollars as compensation to artists and copyright owners for the unauthorized utilization of their music.

In 2002, Napster filed for bankruptcy and was later purchased by Best Buy for $121 million. It underwent a transformation to become a legitimate paid music downloading site. The International Herald Tribune published an article about a legal case involving ThePirateBay.org, a Swedish Bit torrent platform. The owners of the website were accused in court of promoting copyright infringement through their site.

The Pirate Bay, a website that provided services, had four individuals charged by Swedish prosecutors for their role in operating it. Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde, and Carl Lunstrom were accused of collaborating to create and promote the site, resulting in violations of copyright law. In court, evidence was presented showing thirty-four instances of copyright infringement. This included twenty-one music files, nine movies, and four videogames. The trial began on February 16, 2009 at Stockholm's district court in Sweden.

The trial of "The Pirate Bay" concluded on April

17, 2009. All four individuals involved were convicted and given one year in prison plus a fine of thirty million Swedish krona (equivalent to three and a half million dollars). Although they appealed the verdict, the issue with the website's content downloading capability remains unresolved. As stated by The Independent, the trial has actually strengthened Bit torrent websites.

Before the trial, The Pirate Bay had over 25 million peers, individuals who uploaded or downloaded torrent files. Following the trial, there has been widespread coverage of the case on blogs and Twitter. Surprisingly, rather than weakening The Pirate Bay, the trial has actually increased its strength beyond expectations.
Business ethics play a crucial role in a business's success and public perception. Tavani and Himma (2000) identify two approaches to business ethics: shareholders and stakeholders. The stakeholder approach is commonly adopted.

The idea of prioritizing maximizing shareholders' value in business ethics is replaced by stakeholder ethics, which emphasizes the multiple purposes and social aspects of businesses. The narrow and unethical nature of solely focusing on maximizing shareholder value is criticized in the business world. Initially, stakeholders were seen as the support groups that companies depended on.

Both businesses and employees have a mutual reliance on each other, although their dependencies are not equivalent. While a business relies on employees, employees also rely on the existence of businesses. However, this does not imply that their relationship is equally balanced. Various stakeholders, including "shareowners, employees, customers, suppliers, financial service providers, and society" (Himma and Tavani, 2000 p. 315), play a crucial role in this dynamic. The ethical approach of stakeholder business emphasizes the importance of considering the

legitimate interests of all stakeholders when making decisions (Himma and Tavani, 2000 p. 315). Consequently, this greatly influences the operational strategies adopted by businesses.

Managers act on behalf of the business and make decisions they believe will be beneficial. If their decisions are proven wrong, shareholders dismiss them. However, the stakeholder perspective challenges this idea and suggests that managers should consider different interests when making decisions. In my opinion, the problem with the stakeholder view is the requirement to modify the hierarchical structure of the business world to promote a more equal relationship between stakeholders and businesses.

In a relationship where one person has formal power over business decisions and management outcomes, it would be extremely difficult. This not only poses challenges to management but also disrupts the social and economic order within businesses. Another perspective on business ethics is corporate social responsibility, which holds that businesses are accountable for their actions as social mediators. Considering that businesses possess substantial financial resources and consume natural resources extensively, it is reasonable to anticipate their involvement in addressing pollution problems.

Should businesses be considered unethical if they ignore their role as a major contributor to pollution and fail to find solutions? The critique of corporate social responsibility argues that it is seen as simply part of a company's strategy. If this viewpoint is accurate, then ethics can be manipulated for profit. Additionally, this approach allows companies to appear ethical and potentially evade international and state regulations.

There are both advantageous and morally questionable aspects in business ethics. To address these concerns, I propose merging the favorable elements of ethical perspectives. One possible approach

is to prioritize the interests of stakeholders when making corporate decisions. By doing so, both the company and its stakeholders would benefit mutually as their interests align and impact each other.

The idea behind corporate social responsibility is to take responsibility for actions and decisions. By adopting this concept, businesses would prioritize the concerns of stakeholders and involve them in decision-making. Instead of blaming stakeholders' interests for mistakes, they would acknowledge their own imperfections as humans and take accountability for their actions.

Microsoft's business ethics are based on six values. These values include integrity and honesty, a passion for customers, partners, and technology, being open and respectful towards others while committed to helping them improve, being willing to take on significant challenges and see them through, being self-critical, curious, and dedicated to personal growth and excellence. Additionally, Microsoft takes responsibility for its commitments, outcomes, and the quality of its products and services towards customers shareholders partners employees (Steven Ballmer, 2010).

The additional sub ethics of Microsoft include the following: strictly following United States government-sanctioned boycotts, ensuring fair and accurate communication with businesses and customers, legally obtaining competitive information, treating information fairly and responsibly, requiring vendors to meet high ethical and regulatory standards in Microsoft's best interest, using information technology wisely and ethically, safeguarding confidential and proprietary information even after employment ends, and possessing a well-planned set of business ethics. It is worth mentioning that Microsoft partially adopts the shareholders' perspective on business ethics rather than the stakeholders' viewpoint.

In my opinion, the stakeholder's perspective is widely accepted and preferred because it values individuals outside of Microsoft by recognizing their needs and

desires. This approach benefits Microsoft by listening to stakeholders and ultimately meeting their expectations for greater benefits. However, Microsoft appears to struggle in fully meeting these expectations despite providing a platform for people to express their opinions and requirements for new products.

Microsoft's policy of prohibiting employee participation in any boycott is overly strict. I propose that in certain situations, employees should have the freedom to decide whether or not to engage in boycotts. Of course, employees would refrain from participating in extreme or illegal boycotts. However, they may boycott a software company, for instance, if it permits P2P downloading and Microsoft provides software from that company.

The Sunday Times has reported that Microsoft is currently seeking a patent for surveillance software, which aims to monitor employees' performance in areas such as productivity, physical health, and abilities. It is worth noting that this action is not mentioned in Microsoft's business code of ethics. Personally, I do not support or endorse this specific patent because it violates individuals' privacy rights. Instead, I propose monitoring employees' computer activities solely to ensure their engagement during work hours. This approach would prevent any direct association with Microsoft if the company were ever involved in legal proceedings.

This "spy" software has the ability to monitor employees even when they are not at their computers using wireless sensors. Therefore, Microsoft's surveillance is inescapable with this software, and they could potentially make decisions solely based on its findings. This disregards the human element of an employee and only benefits Microsoft. Personally, this goes against my ethics. In conclusion, ethics are crucial for businesses to thrive and attract customers.