The document discusses intellectual property and copyright issues in the context of changing technology. It covers topics such as what constitutes intellectual property, copyright law and significant court cases that have shaped interpretations of fair use. It also discusses challenges posed by new technologies for copying and sharing digital content, and responses from content industries like digital rights management systems. Both sides of arguments around copying are presented, as well as international issues with intellectual property piracy.

1. A GIFT OF FIRE
THIRD EDITION
SARA BAASE
CHAPTER 4: INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye (and Liam
Keliher)
Original Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
Adapted by Enas Naffar for use in Computing Ethics course –Philadelphia university

2. 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. Corresponding page
number:
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.
183
PRINCIPLES, LAWS, AND CASES

10. Corresponding page
number:
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
PRINCIPLES, LAWS, AND CASES

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. 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. 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. 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.)
Significant Cases:
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
Significant Cases (cont.):
Significant Cases
“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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. SEARCH ENGINES AND
ONLINE LIBRARIES
Search Engines
• 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

38. SEARCH ENGINES AND
ONLINE LIBRARIES
Search Engines
• 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

39. SEARCH ENGINES AND
ONLINE LIBRARIES
Search Engines
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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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
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.

51. 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

52. 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

53. Corresponding page
number:
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
218-219
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS IN
SOFTWARE

54. Corresponding page
number:
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.
219
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS IN
SOFTWARE