Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
new restrictions on copying, even though sometimes these restrictions make it impossi-
ble for consumers to make copies that were previously considered fair use. Many digital
rights management strategies have been abandoned or circumvented. Recording com-
panies have begun to soften their stance toward digital rights management, as evidenced
by the fact that consumers may now purchase DRM-free music from Amazon and the
Apple iTunes Store.
Peer-to-peer networks enable people to swap files around the world. Many of these
files contain copyrighted songs, TV shows, or movies. Napster facilitated the exchange of
music files until it was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
A judge shut down Napster after Napster indicated it could not block 100 percent of
attempted transfers of copyrighted material. However, other free file-sharing services
such as Grokster and StreamCast took Napster's place. A diverse group of movie studios,
recording companies, music publishers, and songwriters sued Grokster and StreamCast.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Grokster and StreamCast could be held liable for the
copyright infringements of their users since they had actively promoted these activities.
Grokster shut down its peer-to-peer network and paid $50 million to copyright holders.
Despite these legal victories by the entertainment industry, popular Web sites such as the
Pirate Bay continue to facilitate the exchange of copyrighted materials on peer-to-peer
networks. Meanwhile, the RIAA has sued or demanded out-of-court settlements from
individuals who allegedly have distributed large numbers of copyrighted songs via the
Internet. These legal actions have reduced the percentage of Internet users who illegally
download music, or at least the percentage of Internet users who are willing to admit to
doing it.
Until the mid-1960s, there was no intellectual property protection for computer
software other than trade secrets. Now, both copyrights and patents are used to protect
software. The case of
Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer
demonstrates that object
code as well as source code is protected by copyright. The area of software patents is
highly controversial. There are a large number of bad software patents, and many soft-
ware patents have been issued for obvious inventions. Large corporations are stockpiling
software patents, so that if they are sued for infringing another company's patent, they
can retaliate with their own patent infringement countersuit.
The open-source movement is an alternative to the more conventional proprietary
model of software development. A great deal of the software that keeps the Internet
running is open-source software. Linux is a popular operating system for servers. In
addition, many low-cost netbook computers are also using the Linux operating system.
The Android operating system is the most popular platform for smartphones. Popular
open-source desktop applications are Firefox and OpenOffice.org.
We examined the question, “Should we give intellectual property protection to
software?” There are both rights-based and utilitarian arguments why we ought to give
intellectual property protection to software. The first argument is based on the notion of
just deserts. It relies upon a natural right to intellectual property, which as we have seen is
a weak right at best. The second argument is based on a chain of consequences: copying
leads to a loss of revenue, which leads to a decline in software production, which harms
society. Taken as a whole, the second argument is not strong. In short, we concluded the
arguments for providing intellectual property protection to software are weak.
