cs210presSean

Transcript

1. Sean Freiburg
2. Ethical Implications of SOPA (and similar bills) Sean Freiburg
4. Why SOPA came about • Media companies have had a hold on the industry • They have succeeded for 1 big reason
5. Whats that? Scarcity. Traditionality media companies have only had to make content that better than competitors ( 2 other channels back in the 50s and 60s)
6. So what have they done? In order to try and hold their market share, they try to lock down content See video cassette and DMCA
7. So what is the goal of these bills? The media companies are trying to lock out the ametuer from creating content, forcing you to consume their content how they want you to consume it.
8. The true effects of these bills These bills will effectively make everyone guilty until proven innocent. You won’t be able to share content without their permission.
9. The true effects of these bills The burden of proof of proving legal vs illegal will now go to the users. This will kill content sharing. This is unethical in framework of our law system.
10. Utilitarian View This law would increase profits at media companies, but at the expense of all people being able to freely share content. Under a utilitarian view, SOPA is unethical.
11. Kantian View Posting content that infringes on a companies content is unethical, but blocking all content until it is proven to be ok infringes on all users. In this case you must weigh the cost. I think the users should be preferred.
12. Law view Being guilty until proven innocent is not the law in the country. It is the opposite, therefore this is unethical in framework of our law system.
13. How can this be fixed? If there is in fact infringing content, the company should have to create a court order to have it removed. This keeps innocent until proven guilty and will force companies to only go after serious infringements
14. In conclusion These bills remove your rights as citizens. Your ability to create and share new content is in great danger. We can fix it by throwing out the current provisions and use existing law to preserve our rights. The modifications they are proposing are hurtful to our rights and could set precedent for other nations to follow.