More Insight from Widen The Web

Long before making this blog, I stumbled upon a WP blog called "Widen the Web". Two articles I felt would be relevant to this blog were ones about the Ethics of Censorship/Restriction of the Internet and the other about how The Benefits of Internet Piracy (click the links). One thing I really like were that blogs have a nice "SAD" analysis structure to them which concisely yet effectively examine the issues.

Internet censorship: right, wrong or both?

Published on July 20, 2012 by Widen the Web in Uncategorized

 

Advocates of unlimited free speech hold that the internet should never, under any circumstances and by any person or organization, by censored in the United States. My heart agrees but my better judgment tells me there are certain instances in which some form of internet censorship is necessary.

The structure for this argument follows the SAD formula of Situation, Analysis and Decision (Louis Alvin Day, 2003).

S: Situation Definition

What are the facts?

The World Wide Web started off as the World Wild West, completely open and uncontrolled by any authority. However, now that ordinary people have the means to put potentially damaging and disruptive content online, governments are realizing that the internet has to be controlled in some way.
Many countries now censor their national internet, including Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The Kremlin has this week voted in a new law to censor the internet in Russia, with a national list of banned websites that ISPs must shut down. Among the reasons cited are child pornography websites and sites that encourage drug use and teenage suicide. Iran has plans to launch a “national internet” – and in China, the classic case of internet censorship, access to some Western news sites and to content that might destabilize the Communist regime is effectively blocked.
The fact is that many governments and organizations censor their local and national internet space in some way. Should the U.S. follow suit?

What the principles behind internet censorship?

Oliver Burkeman argues, in an excellent Guardian newspaper report, that debates about censorship and freedom of speech online boil down to the “fundamental question of whether the internet should be ‘open’ – a place of unfettered expression, self-organising order and plenty of chaos – or ‘closed’ and controlled, subjugated to existing frameworks of politics, policing and law.”
The Western value system leans towards the “open” internet, since freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in fundamental Western philosophies such as those of John Stuart Mill.
At the extreme end of freedom of speech is digital utopianism – that free speech should reign supreme, and that online openness should be championed at all costs. The phenomenon of digital utopianism is excellently espoused in Frank Turner’s book, From Counterculture to Cyberculture. This is the view of techno-libertarians and groups such as the OpenNet Initiative and Reporters without Borders, who publish an annual list of “Enemies of the Internet.”
At the other end of the scale are many conservative citizens and mums who desire the internet to be a civilized space, free of child pornography, sex, drugs, suicide, violent death and other social taboos.
In the middle are people like me, who recognize that some sort of control over the internet space is necessary – but that in most cases it is either technically impossible or socially undesirable to censor the net.

What is the fundamental issue behind internet censorship?

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the internet can and should be censored in some way, I identify four areas of controversy.

1. WHO has the right to censor the web – and who decides who has that right?
2. In what CONTEXTS is it right to censor the web?
3. WHY? What is the purpose behind internet censorship, and is that purpose legitimate?
4. Are there alternatives to internet censorship that would be more effective and easier for the public and free speech advocates to swallow?

A: Analysis of the Situation

Ideas vs information

Even free speech advocates will admit that there is a vast chasm between censoring ideas and censoring information. Ideas should never be censored, however unattractive they are. Information, on the other hand, can and should in some cases be censored.
During World Wars I and II, British censors blacked out whole sentences and paragraphs in personal letters and newspapers in order to hinder information-gathering by German intelligence. If World War III were to break out and somebody decided to leak the entire US defense strategy on the internet, I would hope that they would be prevented from endangering the country.
Arguments about national security are admittedly shaky. Who is to decide what is and is not to be censored in the interests of national security? In many countries, “national security” can be used as a smokescreen for dodgy dealings and corruption. However, that doesn’t mean that national security is not a good reason to prohibit some content from being freely available online.

Private and corporate vs. state censorship

Local, privately owned organizations on the internet can legitimately self-censor their own online spaces, as long as they make their policies clear. For instance, if somebody makes an inappropriate comment on my personal blog, I am at liberty to “censor” their freedom of speech by removing it. A company might decide to censor their internal network to stop employees releasing corporate secrets, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
In an interesting recent case, Facebook were lambasted for removing a link to a Human Rights Watch report posted by the free speech advocacy group Article 19. The group’s executive director, Dr Agnes Callamard, complained: “The deletion shows the looming threat of private censorship…. Facebook act like judge, jury and executioner.”
However, even though Facebook could and should have done more to investigate the case and inform the group before removing the link, it is arguably justified that Facebook have a moderation team that removes offensive or inappropriate content. In a way, this is an example of a community being responsible by censoring and policing itself.

Censorship in context

Context matters greatly in debates about internet censorship. For instance, most parents would agree that websites which encourage teen suicide, glamorize drug-taking or show violent and pornographic material should be censored on school computers, by filtering software or a code of conduct. Those same websites may be legitimate and (borderline) acceptable in other settings, such as private homes or research institutes.

What else?

Several other factors must be taken into consideration.

• There is a difference between censoring the internet and censoring traditional media such as newspapers. There are a finite number of newspapers and each newspaper has a finite number of pages, which makes censorship more straightforward. Moreover, newspapers are written by trained journalists who are careful about claims that they make and information that they release. On the web, the amount of content available is infinite, uncontrolled, impossible to keep track of and produced mainly by people with no fear of lawsuits or training in journalistic codes of conduct.
• Many laws already exist that may be sufficient for stopping harmful content being available online. For instance, privacy laws, and laws against illegal drug sales or child pornography. Before enacting any internet censorship bill, we should look at existing laws that impact these issues.
• Should censorship should be reactive or proactive? Installing filtering software on computers in libraries and schools is a form of proactive censorship. If, on the other hand, we wait until something harmful is put online then demand that an ISP removes it from the internet, that is a form of reactive censorship.
• It may not even be possible to censor the web effectively. People get around current censorship in China and Iran using proxy websites or VPNs. It is likely that whatever censorship methods are put in place, determined hackers will always be able to get around them.

Duties and responsibilities

• As a society, we have a duty to our fellow citizens to protect their freedom of speech…but also to protect society as a whole. The latter duty underlies arguments for internet censorship on the grounds of national security.
• We also have a duty to protect an individual’s right to privacy. When one person’s freedom of expression infringes on another’s right to privacy, we should be able to resolve that by limiting that freedom of expression in some way.
• We have a duty to our children and teens, to protect them from obscene or harmful content while they are young and vulnerable.
• We have a duty to protect intellectual property and corporate secrets in order to allow the economy to flourish.
• We have a duty to protect individuals from con-men and fraudulent phishing websites whose sole purpose is to engage in criminal activity.

D: Decision

Context matters so greatly in questions of internet censorship that I find it impossible to list areas where censoring content is either right or wrong. Rather, I think every issue should be discussed openly and transparently.
Rather than entrust a few people with decisions as to what should be censored and why, I think we should engage in candid debate – as a society, through politics, the courts, the media, and internet blogs and forums.
Hillary Clinton has campaigned globally for “internet freedom.” Attempting to censor the web would put the U.S. government in the strange position of encouraging people in foreign regimes to beat internet censors, as this article in the Guardian newspaper explores, while preventing their own citizens from viewing content freely.
Moreover, we can’t stop the web. Rather than focusing on censorship, I think we should explore innovative ways of helping useful, better quality internet content triumph over the bad stuff. Options include refining search engines, exploring so-called “net neutrality” (which stops ISPs making it harder to access one site over another) and plain old self-censorship by organizations that listen to their users.
I think this would satisfy the generally accepted Western idea that freedom of expression should be limited only when there is a real, demonstrable and universally agreed need to prevent harm to vulnerable people.

Internet piracy helps everyone

Published on July 21, 2012 by Widen the Web in Uncategorized

“In these difficult economic times, I cannot afford to purchase the latest song ffrom my favorite artist, to pay to go to a movie theater to see the latest blockbuster or upgrade to the newest editing software, so I am going to go to a torrent site. How much damage can one person really do?” A former student’s post.

Right, wrong, or more complicated than that? I believe it’s right. In fact, I believe that far from causing damage, internet piracy is actually a helpful force. I shall focus not on the legality of internet piracy but on the ethics.

The structure for this argument follows the SAD formula of Situation, Analysis and Decision (Louis Alvin Day, 2003).

S: Situation Definition

Facts, principles, values and the fundamental ethical issue

In debates about internet piracy, there is a strange tendency towards hyperbole and hysteria. The folk at CopyNot.com call it “The Unseen Menace” and claim it is responsible for “funding, and sponsoring the ever present, ever growing menace of the twin evils that blight our society,– organised crime, the illegal drugs trade and terrorism.”
In contrast, I believe that internet piracy is a good thing not just for individuals but for the record companies, movie producers and software manufacturers who make such a fuss about lost earnings and supposed “theft.”
Let’s get our facts and principles straight.
The fact is, the marginal cost of production of digital content is almost zero. In a book by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development entitled Piracy of Digital Content, the authors pointed to the “virtually negligible marginal cost of reproduction… By comparison, in the case of tangible products the reproduction of a given good involves certain positive marginal costs of production.” When pirated, it really is zero for the company. So internet piracy is not theft in the same way that going into a store and running off with a new handbag is theft.
I believe in the principle that you are only harming a company if you would have purchased an item from them, and didn’t because you could get a free copy. In most cases of piracy, as this article in Mays Business Online points out, the individual would not have purchased that item if they couldn’t get it for free. “Therefore, the projected loss in sales attributed to piracy represents a dollar amount the company would not have achieved even had there been no piracy.”
Many people believe in the principle that creativity should be rewarded. In fact, in most cases the money from album or software sales doesn’t go to the artist, actor or software programmers and developers. It goes to the agent, record label and producer, as this article and graph indicate. I don’t have much sympathy with these mega-corporations.
Another potent fact is that record companies, movie producers and software manufacturers do not make money by selling albums, films and software CDs to individuals. Rather, as this article in CNet explains, musicians make their money through tours and concerts. Movie producers make their money through movie theaters. Software companies make money through selling their software to large companies. None of these sources of revenue will dry up if an individual pirates a copy of their work.

A: Analysis of the Situation

Competing principles and values, external factors, duties and applicable ethical theories

Let’s think about these facts for a moment, using case studies to explore the competing principles, external factors and duties of the different parties.

1. Music piracy

Mark is a sociable guy who loves music but doesn’t have a lot of money to buy albums. He downloads a bunch of pirated songs and – wow! He’s really taken with a band called X Marks the Spot. So he shares the songs with all his friends and raves about them on Facebook… maybe he even mashes up one of their songs and puts it on YouTube.
The result? Huge, effective, word-of-mouth publicity for X Marks the Spot, at absolutely no cost. Some of Mark’s friends go out and buy an X Marks the Spot album, or buy tickets to their concert next time they’re touring in the area. And they tell their friends…. and so on. All due to one single act of piracy that harmed no-one.
Some musicians are actually coming around to this way of thinking. Singer Billy Bragg, for instance, reportedly said that many of his fans had discovered his music through file-sharing and paid for his music in other ways.

2. Software piracy

Sarah has just graduated from Quinnipiac University and has lost her special “education” discount on software. But she really needs the latest Adobe Photoshop in order to set up a small business offering graphic design services. It’s hugely expensive so she downloads a pirated copy for a fraction of the price. That’s stealing! say Adobe.
But let’s think. If Sarah had not downloaded the pirated copy of Photoshop, she may well have turned to a cheaper, open source alternative to Photoshop such as Gimp. She would have become so accustomed to Gimp that when her business grew and she had the money to buy software legally for her new staff, she would have eschewed Photoshop in favor of Gimp. She may well have gone around telling others in her industry that there’s no need to buy Photoshop when you can use Gimp for free…undermining Photoshop’s position as the industry standard.
So Sarah’s act of piracy leads to Photoshop winning out, both directly in terms of future sales, and indirectly in terms of maintaining its position as an industry standard for graphic design.

3. Pirate competitions

The other benefit of internet piracy is that it forces record, movie and software companies to be competitive. It forces them to come up with innovative ways of selling their products to consumers.
For instance, Apple’s decision to start selling albums in chunks of one song at a time, priced at 99 cents, benefits the consumer – lower prices and greater control over what exactly is purchased. This was arguably a result of the need to compete against internet piracy. The same goes for Amazon and Netflix with their attractively priced and unlimited movie streaming packages.
Companies must also make their purchasing systems so user-friendly that it is a much more attractive option to pay for legal content than to download free illegal content. Antiquated purchasing systems and slow download speeds are out – make it easy, fast and secure and people will be willing to pay for that.
In the past, I myself have downloaded pirated videos and music from illegal torrent sites. But I don’t any more. It takes ages, and you never know if you’re going to get the real deal or a crackly version with subtitles in a strange language, or a piece of software with bugs. If you pay online for a pirated piece of software, you worry about the security of your credit card.

D: Decision and Defense

• Internet piracy benefits individuals who can get hold of music, movies, software and other digital content that they would not otherwise be able to afford.
• Internet piracy benefits record companies by giving them free word-of-mouth and social media publicity at absolutely no cost. Recent research papers testify to the power of music piracy to drive sales.
• Internet piracy benefits software developers by helping their products become the accepted industry standard – which means companies will be more likely to purchase that software in bulk. The above-mentioned Mays Business article calls this the “network effect principle” – that “the more people have a technology, the more valuable that technology is, as it becomes the industry standard.”
• Internet piracy benefits the entire system by introducing an element of competition… leading to greater efficiency, more innovation and a better deal for the consumer. As this scholarly article by Sanjay Jain explores, “contrary to the claims of manufacturers, there are conditions under which copying can increase firms’ profits, lead to better quality products, and increase social welfare.”

I may not download pirated content and software myself any more, but that’s because it’s easier and more reliable to pay for it – and because I can afford to pay for it. It’s certainly not through any feeling that internet piracy is morally wrong.

These works are not mine, I respect them and do not intend to use them or plagiarize which is why I linked these articles back to their mother blog. Please visit http://www.widentheweb.com for more info.

Posted in: Featured