April 1995 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Intellectual Honesty in the Era of Computing
Unethical. Again in simple terms, it is unethical to take something that belongs to another person without the permission of the other person. Kant's categorical imperative and the Golden Rule address the situation. An individual devalues the labor, creativity and dedication that creators put into a work by making a copy of it. The copier is treating the creators as means to his/her personal ends. The unauthorized copier effectively discounts the worth and value of the creators by choosing to count their talents and labor as worthless. That's unacceptable in any community, but especially in one committed to intellectual honesty. Not in their self interest. All of us are members of society and benefit from our association and involvement in it. To the extent that society functions effectively, our lives are easier and richer. As the social structure deteriorates, each of us expends more time and energy protecting our personal interest—if A can't trust B to treat her fairly then A spends more time watching B and less time creating and sharing. The result is A expends great energy and resources but there is nothing to show for it—both A and B lose. The same is true with computerized works. Making copies means that creators will either increase prices to cover the cost of theft, or reduce their creations as they do not receive an acceptable level of return on their work (one can argue about the appropriate level, but that is not within the scope of this paper). In either case, the person who copies digitized works with impunity may benefit in the short term but is contributing to increased costs or decreased creativity for everyone in the long run. Addressing the Obvious Dilemma The opposing factors create a dilemma #172;an environment that values rugged individualism and freedom juxtaposed with social requirements that demand responsibility and restraint. The dilemma is nowhere more obvious than in the legal context. While laws clearly exist and apply, for all intents and purposes they are unenforceable. There are no bit cops monitoring the activities of individuals as they work with personal computers. The law places the burden of enforcement on the holders of copyright—that is, it is the copyright holders who must take the initiative when their rights have been infringed. Although there are cases of successful infringement, they are few and far between. The likelihood of being caught and punished is extremely small. So, what purpose do the laws serve? Even when unenforceable, laws detail society's expectations. Laws lay out what society has said are the appropriate limits. They serve to mark the boundaries of minimal acceptable behavior.3400-6893
