1. A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase
Chapter 4: Intellectual Property
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye (and Liam Keliher)

2. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
What We Will Cover
Intellectual Property and Changing Technology
Copyright Law and Significant Cases
Copying and Sharing
Search Engines and Online Libraries
Free-Speech Issues
Free Software
Issues for Software Developers
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

3. Intellectual Property
Have you ever posted a homemade video on the web that is set to a popular song?
Have you ever recorded a televised movie to watch later?
Have you downloaded music or a movie from the web without paying for it?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

4. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology
What is Intellectual Property?
The intangible creative work, not its particular physical form
Value of intelligence and artistic work comes from creativity, ideas, research, skills, labor, non- material efforts and attributes the creator provides
Protected by copyrights, patent laws or trademarks.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

5. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology
What is Intellectual Property? Example: Designing and developing a computer program can take months or years of work and cost thousands or millions of dollars. - Protection of intellectual property has both individual and social benefits. How ?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

6. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.)
What is “copy right”? ©
Copyright holders have exclusive rights:
To make copies
To produce derivative works, such as translations into other languages or movies based on books
To distribute copies
To perform the work in public (music, plays, etc.)
To display the work in public (art gallery, Web site)
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

7. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.)
What is “copy right”? ©
Copyrights last for a limited time.
Example: The lifetime of the author plus 70 years. After that, the work in in the public domain.
Time period for copyrights control has been changed many times.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

8. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.)
Copyrights vs. Patent ?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

9. Principles, Laws, and Cases
Challenges of New Technology
Digital technology and the Internet make copyright infringement easier and cheaper.
New compression technologies make copying large files (e.g. graphics, video and audio files) feasible.
Search engines make finding material easier.
Peer-to-peer technology makes transferring and sharing files easier.
The content industries claim that about one-quarter of Internet traffic worldwide consists of copyright-infringing material.
183

10. Principles, Laws, and Cases
Challenges of New Technology (cont.)
Broadband connections make transferring files easier and enable streaming video.
Miniaturization of cameras and other equipment enable audience members to record and transmit events.
Scanners allow us to change the media of a copyrighted work, converting printed text, photos, and artwork to electronic form.
New tools allow us to modify graphics, video and audio files to make derivative works.
183

11. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.)
Result:
In the past, (mostly) only companies worried about protecting copyright, and only companies had access to the technology needed to infringe copyright
Now, computer technology gives everyone the ability to make perfect copies of works on a large scale
copyright is everyone’s concern
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

12. Intellectual Property and Changing Technology (cont.)
The first category of intellectual property to face threats from digital media was Computer Software itself.
Copying software used to be common practice.
It was once considered a standard and acceptable practice( if it were considered at all).
The software industry estimates the value of pirated software in billions of dollars.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

13. Copyright Law and Significant Cases
A bit of history:
1790 first copyright law passed ( covered books, map, charts, etc.).
1909 Copyright Act of 1909 defined an unauthorized copy as a form that could be seen and read visually
1976 and 1980 copyright law revised to include software and databases that exhibit "authorship" (original expression of ideas).
1982 high-volume copying became a felony
1992 making multiple copies for commercial advantage and private gain became a felony
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

14. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
A bit of History (cont.):
1997 No Electronic Theft Act made it a felony to willfully infringe copyright by reproducing or distributing one or more copies of copyrighted work with a total value of more than $1,000 within a six- month period
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA):
prohibits making, distributing or using tools to avoid technological copyright protection systems
includes protection from some copyright claims for Web sites where users post material.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

15. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Fair Use in the U.S.
Fair Use Doctrine:
Four factors considered
1. Purpose and nature of use – commercial vs. non-profit purposes
2. Nature of the copyrighted work (creative or factual?)
3. Amount of significance or portion used
4. Effect of use on potential market or value of the copyright work (will it reduce sales of work?)
No single factor alone determines
Not all factors given equal weight, varies by circumstance
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

16. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Fair Use in the U.S.
Fair Use Doctrine helps us figure out under what circumstances we can legally copy music, videos, software, etc.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

17. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Fair Dealing in Canada
Fair Dealing in Canada:
More restrictive than Fair Use in the U.S.
Six considerations:
1. the purpose of the dealing
2. the character of the dealing
3. the amount of the dealing
4. the nature of the work
5. available alternatives to the dealing
6. the effect of the dealing on the work
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

18. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984)
Supreme Court decided that the makers of a device with legitimate uses should not be penalized because some people may use it to infringe on copyright
Supreme Court decided copying movies for later viewing was fair use
Arguments against fair use
People copied the entire work
Movies are creative, not factual
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

19. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) (cont.)
Arguments for fair use
The copy was for private, noncommercial use and generally was not kept after viewing
The movie studios could not demonstrate that they suffered any harm
The studios had received a substantial fee for broadcasting movies on TV, and the fee depends on having a large audience who view for free
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

20. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Reverse engineering: game machines
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc. (1992)
Accolade made videogames to run on Sega machines.
They copied Sega program and decompiled it (reverse engineering).
Sega sued, Accolade won.
Court saw that Accolade’s act fits with the purpose of fair use. How ?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

21. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Reverse engineering: game machines
- Atari Games v. Nintendo (1992)
- Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation (2000)
Courts ruled that reverse engineering does not violate copyright if the intention is to make new creative works (video games), not copy the original work (the game systems)
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

22. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sharing music: the Napster case
Napster is a service allowing users to copy songs in MP3 format from the Hard disks of other users.
It was popular and had millions of users.
Napster users copied and distributed songs they had without authorization.
18 record companies sued Napster for copyright infringement.
Who won ?!
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

23. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sharing music: the Napster case
Was the sharing of music via Napster fair use?
Was Napster responsible for the actions of its users?
Napster's arguments for fair use
The Sony decision allowed for entertainment use to be considered fair use
Did not hurt industry sales because users sampled the music on Napster and bought the CD if they liked it
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

24. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sharing music: the Napster case (cont.)
RIAA's (Recording Industry Association of America) arguments against fair use
"Personal" meant very limited use, not trading with thousands of strangers
Songs and music are creative works and users were copying whole songs
Claimed Napster severely hurt sales
Court ruled sharing music via copied MP3 files violated copyright
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

25. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sharing music: the Napster case (cont.)
Was Napster responsible for the actions of its users?
Napster's arguments
It was the same as a search engine, which is protected under the DMCA
They did not store any of the MP3 files
Their technology had substantial legitimate uses
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

26. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
Sharing music: the Napster case (cont.)
RIAA's arguments
Companies are required to make an effort to prevent copyright violations and Napster did not take sufficient steps
Napster was not a device or new technology and the RIAA was not seeking to ban the technology
Court ruled Napster liable because they had the right and ability to supervise the system, including copyright infringing activities
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

27. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
File sharing: MGM v. Grokster
Grokster, Gnutella, Morpheus, Kazaa, and others provided peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing services
The companies did not provide a central service or lists of songs
P2P file transfer programs have legitimate uses
Lower Courts ruled that P2P does have legitimate uses
Supreme Court ruled that intellectual property owners could sue the companies for encouraging copyright infringement
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

28. Copyright Law and Significant Cases (cont.)
“Look and feel”
Refers to features such as pull-down menus, windows, icons, and finger movements and specific ways they are used to select or initiate actions.
Reflects major creative effort by programmers.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

29. Copyright Law and Significant Cases Discussion Question
What do you think the impact would be on creative industries, such as music, movies and fiction novels, if copyright laws did not protect their intellectual property?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

30. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Copying and Sharing
The problem looks different from different perspectives. How?
Users
Writers, artists, etc
Publishers, software companies, etc
Amateur artists
scholars and advocates
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

31. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Copying and Sharing
Responses from the Content Industries:
Ideas from the software industries
Expiration dates within the software
Dongles (a device that must be plugged into a computer port).
Copy protection that prevents copying
Activation or registration codes
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

32. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Copying and Sharing
Responses from the Content Industries:
Ideas from the software industries
Some companies sold programs that deactivate the built-in copy protections on other programs.
- Court orders to shut down Internet bulletin boards and Web sites that threatened intellectual property.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

33. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Responses from the Content Industries (cont.):
Banning, suing and taxing
It penalizes products, companies and activities that do not always infringe copyrights.
This approach threatens innovation.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

34. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Responses from the Content Industries (cont.):
Banning, suing and taxing
Ban or delay technology via lawsuits
CD-recording devices
Digital Audio Tapes (DAT)
DVD players (with copy feature)
Portable MP3 players
Require that new technology include copyright protections (copy-protection mechanisms).
Tax digital media to compensate the industry for expected losses
blank CDs/DVDs, iPods, cell phones
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

35. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Responses from the Content Industries (cont.):
Banning, suing and taxing
Should we ban or restrict a technology, a device or a software because it has the potential for illegal use?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

36. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Digital Rights Management (DRM):
Collection of techniques that control uses of intellectual property in digital formats
Includes hardware and software schemes using encryption
The producer of a file has flexibility to specify what a user may do with it
Apple, Microsoft and Sony all use different schemes of DRM
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

37. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Digital Rights Management (DRM):
DRM prevents fair uses as well as infringing uses.
DRM is sometimes ineffective!
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

38. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Video Sharing: Conflict and Solutions:
New technology made it easier to infringe a copyright. How?
Industry issues "take down" notices (DMCA)
As long as sites like YouTube and MySpace comply with take down notices they are not in violation.
Take down notices may violate fair use; some have been issued against small portions of video being used for educational purposes.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

39. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
After supreme court decision in MGM v. Grokster, people who wanted to operate legitimate businesses providing music realized they had to :
Either filter out industry owned material.
Or make agreements with, and payments to music companies.
Organizations set up to collect and distribute royalty fees.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

40. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
Negotiated payments:
- Some entertainment companies and Web content- sharing sites negotiate contracts for the Web site company to pay a share of its ad revenue to the entertainment companies.
- Some sharing sites use filtering software that examines files as people upload them, looking for the digital “fingerprint” of the entertainment company’s property.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

41. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
Revenue sharing allows content-sharing sites to allow the posting of content and share their ad revenues with content owners in compensation.
Depending on agreements between the companies, the site can block the post entirely or pay the entertainment company for its appearance on the site.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

42. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
What do you think about this approach?!
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

43. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
More uses of advertising
The industry imbeds advertising in files that it then posts to the P2P sites.
The advertiser pays fees to the copyright holder. advertiser gets its message out, industry gets its fees
Some P2P sites are not happy with this development. They consider marketing messages to be a form of spam.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

44. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
Fan Fiction: Let it be
Fan Fiction includes stories written by amateurs using characters from popular fiction such as Harry Potter and Star Trek.
Fan fiction is generally not seen as a threat
The writers are often also customers
Fan stories are not copies of copyrighted work, but they are derivative works.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

45. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
The response of writers and publishers to fan fiction was more calm than the response of the music and movie industries to unauthorized distribution of their products on the web.
With derivative works, publishers do not worry only about loss of potential revenue but also about damages to their image.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

46. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
New Business Models and Constructive Solutions:
Cloud storage raises copyright issues.
Is copying legally purchased files to and from the cloud a fair use?
Will the companies operating the cloud services have any responsibility for unauthorized content their customers store and share?
Since copyright holders do not see what is stored, they do not have the option of sending takedown notices.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

47. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Ethical Arguments About Copying:
Unlike physical property, copying or distributing a song, video, or computer program does not decrease the use or enjoyment by another person
Copying can decrease the economic value of creative work produced for sale
The fair use guidelines are useful ethical guidelines
There are many arguments for and against unauthorized copying
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

48. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Arguments For Copying:
“I cannot afford to pay for it.”
“The company is large and wealthy.”
“I’ll buy it later if I like it.”
“Copying it for my friend is an act of generosity.”
“My copying is minor compared to the large-scale piracy that goes on.”
“I don’t know how to contact the owner.”
“Everyone does it.”
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

49. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
Ethical Arguments About Copying:
Laws are not always good guides for ethical decisions, but the Fair use guidelines do a good job of identifying criteria to help distinguish fair and unfair copying.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

50. Copying and Sharing (cont.)
International Piracy:
Some countries do not recognize or protect intellectual property
Countries that have high piracy rates often do not have a significant software industry
Many countries that have a high amount of piracy are exporting the pirated copies to countries with strict copyright laws
Many countries with high piracy rates do not have a significant software industry.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

51. Search Engines and Online Libraries
Copying is essential to services of search engines.
In response to search queries, search engines display copies of text excerpts from web sites and copies from images and videos.
Search engine sometimes copy entire books so that they can search and display segments in response to user queries.
Some search engines provide links to websites that infringe copyrights.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

52. Search Engines and Online Libraries
Caching and displaying small excerpts is fair use.
Why ?
Creating and displaying thumbnail images is fair use
Court ordered Google to remove links to pages that infringe copyright.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

53. Search Engines and Online Libraries
BUT
The display of short excerpts can reduce income to copyright holders in some situations.
Google negotiated licensing agreements to copy and display headlines, excerpts and photos.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

54. Search Engines and Online Libraries
Books Online
Project Guttenberg digitizes books in the public domain
Microsoft scanned millions of public domain books in University of California's library
Google has scanned millions of books that are in the public domain and that are not; they display only excerpts from those still copyrighted.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

55. Search Engines and Online Libraries
Books Online
Some court rulings favor search engines and information access; some favor content producers.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

56. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free-Speech Issues
Domain Names:
A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods. 
Domain names may be used to criticize or protest (e.g. XYZisJunk.org)
Companies sue under trademark violation, but most cases dismissed.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

57. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free-Speech Issues
Domain Names:
Some companies buy numerous domain names containing their name so others cannot use them
Does trademark violation claims interfere with freedom of speech ? How?
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

58. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free-Speech Issues
Posting Documents for Criticism:
Documents that are copyrighted and trade secrets have been posted as a form of criticism
Organizations have sued to have the documents removed from the Web
In some cases courts have ruled that it is a copyright violation and the documents must be removed.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

59. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free-Speech Issues
Posting Documents for Criticism:
Some people posted copyrighted documents containing sacred teaching of the Church of Scientology on the internet.
The people who posted the documents argued it was a fair use.
They made copies for entire documents but not for commercial gain.
The church argued the posted documents were “secret” ones and would show them only to high-ranking members who pay fees to move up ranks.
In one judgment against the Church of Scientology, the court ruled that the church’s primary motivation was "to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics“.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

60. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free-Speech Issues
Posting Documents for Criticism
In two cases, courts found men who posted material infringed the church’s copyright.
The church demanded Google not show the documents in search results
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

61. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free Software
We have talked about free stuff in Chapter One.
Free software - idea, an ethic, advocated and supported by large group of computer programmers who allow people to copy, use, and modify their software.
Free means freedom of use, not necessarily lack of cost.
Open source - software distributed or made public in source code (readable and modifiable)
Proprietary software - (commercial) sold in object code (obscure, not modifiable) (E.g.: Microsoft Office)
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

62. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free Software
Advantages and Disadvantages?!
More people can use and benefit the program
Bugs could be found and fixed quickly
It’s not easy to use (for ordinary people)
Lack of support (like manuals)
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

63. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free Software
GNU project
Began with a UNIX-like operating system, a sophisticated text editor, and many compilers and utilities
Now has hundreds of programs freely available and thousands of software packages available as free software (with modifiable source code)
Developed the concept of copyleft
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

64. Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Free Software
Should All Software Be Free?
Would there be sufficient motivation to produce the huge quantity of consumer software?
Would the current funding methods for free software be sufficient to support all software development?
Should software be covered under copyright law?
Concepts such as copyleft and the GNU Public License provide alternatives to proprietary software within today's current legal framework
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

65. Issues for Software Developers
Patent decisions, confusion, and consequences
Patents protect inventions by giving the inventor a monopoly for a specified time period.
Laws of nature and mathematical formulas cannot be patented.
Obvious inventions or methods cannot be patented.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

66. Issues for Software Developers
Patents for Software?
Patents protect inventions of new things or processes
The Supreme Court (1981) said that software could not be patented; however a machine that included software could
In 1980s and 1990s, U.S. started issuing patents for software
Patents not supposed to be given for things that are obvious or already in common use
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

67. Issues for Software Developers (cont.)
Patents on Web Technologies:
Microsoft was fined $1.5 billion for violating MP3 patents. The decision was voided; the case continues.
Friendster applied for a patent on its social- networking Web techniques. While the patent was pending, sites such as MySpace and Facebook sprang up
Friendster's patent was granted and it may now charge licensing fees to businesses using the technology.
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

68. Issues for Software Developers (cont.)
A few cases
Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, and e- commerce and Web-viewing
Apple, Android, and tap-touch screens
IBM , Amazon, and electronic catalogues
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

69. Patents for Inventions in Software
To patent or not?
In favor of software patents
Reward inventors for their creative work
Encourage inventors to disclose their inventions so others can build upon them
Encourage innovation

70. Patents for Inventions in Software
To patent or not?
Against software patents
Patents can stifle innovation, rather than encourage it.
Cost of lawyers to research patents and risk of being sued discourage small companies from attempting to develop and market new innovations.
It is difficult to determine what is truly original and distinguish a patentable innovation from one that is not.
Many computer scientists see all algorithms as mathematical formulas.
219