Discussion Questions on Digital Issues (Part 2)

Is there such a thing as internet ethics? Should there be any? Who should decide what the rules should be?

To me, the internet seems a lot like the Wild West right now. Technically, there are laws on the books, but the laws can only be enforced in small pockets and are therefore moot to the majority of the population. But just as we progressed from the free-for-all of the Wild West to the structure and stability of government, I believe the internet will progress to a more stable and structured online environment. It seems pretty clear to me that as we become more and more enmeshed with our digital selves, we will need a stronger set of rules for online behavior. If not for the sake of morality, then just for our own protection. Many of these rules seem pretty obvious and are already in place (identity theft, online stalking, etc.) There are, however, several areas where there is no general consensus for what a rule should be.

One such area I would like to mention relates to DRM and intellectual property. (full disclosure: I use p2p networking to download music) Generally, I am not in favor of DRM. I believe that if you buy some form of digital media, you own it and are free to do almost anything you want with it. And that includes copying it and distributing it, as long as you do not receive compensation for doing so (without an agreement with the original creator). For example, I believe that it's OK to copy a CD and give it to anyone you want, but it's not OK to copy a CD and sell it for profit. (with the exception of record labels who make a deal with the original creator) Similarly, I believe it's OK to make digital copies of songs you bought and give them to people (using p2p networking or other means), but it's not OK to make digital copies of songs and sell them. (with the exception of entities like iTunes who make deals with the record labels who make deals with the original artists) ((another XKCD comic))

I would also like to mention EULA's. I agree with the general idea behind the EULA, that a company that provides an online environment for multiple users should not be held legally responsible for inappropriate content or actions of individuals, and that it can regulate that environment by suspending/banning accounts that violate the site's terms of acceptable behavior. But I think that the EULA is the wrong way to go. No one actually reads the EULA, and it isn't (or shouldn't) be legally binding anyway. Companies routinely throw in extra rules and restrictions into EULA's that most people don't know about, especially in regards to 3rd party software and spyware. I think a better idea would be to make a general rule for social networking sites, MMORPG's, etc. that the two valid ideas I mentioned behind the original EULA are universally valid on the internet, and then get rid of the EULA altogether.

I think everyone on the planet has a say in deciding how areas like these will ultimately be sorted out. People will always make their voices heard. In the case of DRM, people will speak either by boycotting DRM'd products or accepting the restrictions and buying them. It will be much the same in other grey areas. Companies will always try to control (i.e. profit from) as much as they can, and it's up to the consumers as to how much control they are willing to cede. It is this balance between freedom and safety that will eventually determine the shape and style of the internet in years to come. Right now, I think we are tilted a lot towards the "free" side. But a factor to consider is that internet is fast becoming less and less anonymous. As technology improves it allows more and more of our "true selves" to come online. And I think we will naturally shift more toward "safety" when we do.