ProfMorning4692
To Tube or Not to Tube Society defines ethics as accepted standards…
To Tube or Not to Tube
Society defines ethics as accepted standards of moral behavior, that is, behaviors accepted by society as right rather than wrong. In the United States, with so many diverse cultures, one might think it is impossible to identify common standards of ethical behavior. However, most societies acknowledge a few basic moral values: Integrity, respect for human life, self-control, honesty, courage, and self-sacrifice are right. Cheating, cowardice, and cruelty are wrong. In general, most cultures or societies support a version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Making Ethical Decisions boxes throughout your text remind individuals to keep ethics in mind whenever making a business decision. Choices are not always easy, and the obvious ethical solution may have personal or professional drawbacks. Every college student has been warned about plagiarizing material from the Internet, books, periodicals, or other people’s work. As the text states, plagiarizing is the most common form of cheating in schools today. Uploading and downloading videos and music from websites like YouTube is no different. YouTube has become a popular website for individuals as well as businesses. However, using material that is protected by copyright is not only unethical, but illegal as well. The “To Tube or Not To Tube” case discusses the issue of video piracy. The case presents a legal and ethical dilemma regarding the use of copyright protected material.
Read the case below and answer the questions that follow.
Whether you want to watch a dog playing a piano, a flashy new music video, or just a slideshow of a family vacation, you can find it on YouTube. Every minute of every day, people all across the globe upload 10 hours of video onto the Google-owned site. A lot of the content is user-generated, meaning amateurs produce it and can instantly place it online for the whole world to see. But some users upload clips from Hollywood movies or network television shows without the permission of the copyright-holding companies. Viacoma media corporation that owns TV stations like CBS, Comedy Central, and MTV and the film production company Paramountdoes not take video sharing lightly. When Viacom noticed that entire episodes of popular shows like South Park and The Daily Show appeared on YouTube, it filed a $1 billion lawsuit for copyright infringement. Viacom argues that featuring its content on YouTube violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires that websites remove copyrighted material uploaded without the owner’s permission. Viacom claims it identified 150,000 unauthorized clips viewed a total of 1.5 billion times, supporting its argument that the exposure robbed it of valuable revenue it would have received from television advertisers. Viacom holds YouTube, rather than the individuals who uploaded the video clips, responsible for carrying the illegal content. YouTube says it diligently tries to delete any videos that generate complaints from copyright owners, but with millions of different users of the site, it is impossible to catch everything. To discourage people from posting copyrighted material, YouTube not only removes the offending videos but also bans any user who uploads copyrighted content without permission. It also provides companies with software to easily identify copyrighted material so it can be reported and removed.
Organizations rallying alongside Viacom include the United Kingdom’s Football Association, which claims that hundreds of clips from English soccer games have been uploaded without permission. Songs from Elvis Presley, Meat Loaf, and ZZ Top have also appeared without consent on YouTube, angering the copyright holders. Many other companies have taken a different approach. They’ve formed mutually beneficial partnerships with YouTube, giving it permission to display their content while splitting the ad revenue it generates there. YouTube worries that Viacom’s suit will prevent people from uploading user-generated content, which has revolutionized worldwide communication and given anyone with a camera and a computer the chance to become a star. In their defensive statement. YouTube’s lawyers said, “Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.”
Sources: Stephen Foley, “Defender of the Net, or an Infringement Factory?” The Independent, June 1, 2008; and Larry Neumesiter, “YouTube Suit Called Threat to Online Communication,” Associated Press, May 27, 2008.
Thoroughly respond and explain your responses to the following questions using reliable resources:
The YouTube case represents a dilemma that is both illegal and unethical. How is legality different from ethics?
What are the three questions to answer when faced with a potentially unethical action such as deciding to download or upload a video that is copyright protected? How can we tell if our business decisions are ethical?
Who should be held accountable for the copyright violationthe people who upload the material or the websites that carry it? Why?
If the websites are not held legally responsible, do they still have an ethical responsibility to find and remove the protected material?
