Case 5- eBay v. Bidder's Edge: Trespass or Legitimate Access?

Our group was assigned eBay v. Bidder's Edge, pages 222-224. Bidder's Edge uses a bot to search through auction sites such as eBay and then makes a list of the different items at different sites available to customers (Spinello p.223). eBay seen that as trespassing and sued Bidder's Edge to stop them from using their bots to search and trespass on their property (website). Bidder's Edge argued back that eBay is a publicly accessible website and had suffered minimal damage to the site. They also argued that there was users who benefited from the site. (Spinello p.223). The court ended up ruling with eBay and Bidder's Edge could no longer use spiders or bots to access eBay's information.
 -Kayla Hero, Michael LaPan

1. Do you agree with the court's decision in this case? Is Bidder's Edge really guilty trespass? How strong a case has eBay presented regarding this claim?
I do not agree with the court's decision in this case. I think that Bidder's Edge didn't really do anything wrong. I don't think that the damages that eBay suffered were real damages to begin with. I do not think that eBay presented a strong case in this claim. I think that if eBay had shown that they had actual damages then they might have had a real case, but since they didn't I don't think that they should have won.
-Angela Goodro
Using utilitarianism, which is the greatest good over evil (Spinello p.11),  I do not agree with the court's decision. There are many people who could have benefited from Bidder's Edge. Instead of having to go to multiple auction sites to find the selling price of one item, you could go to just one website and they did that work for you. I don't think eBay's website had that much damage done to it, that the damage done to eBay would outweigh the damage done by taking away the site from customers who were benefiting from it. It may have even been a good thing for eBay, showing that their site had the best prices. Bidder's edge may have even sent customers to eBay. Bidder's Edge only used publicly accessible information to their advantage. Bidder's Edge didn't really trespass since the information on eBay is available to anyone who visits the site. All Bidder's Edge did was really take the information and make it more easily available to its customers.
-Kayla Hero, Adam Magiera
I disagree with the rest of my group and believe that the court's decision was correct in this case. I will use Pluralism, which states that something is unethical when universalizing it as a maxim creates a contradiction (Spinello p.15). Bidders Edge asserted that no trespassing occurred because even though they had a robots exclusion header eBay's site was publicly accessible(Spinello p.223). This is the same as saying that because someone lets their anyone onto their property everyone is allowed to come into it. This can be universalized as "It is permissible for everyone to enter another's property if anyone is allowed to" This creates a logical contradiction as if everyone can enter another's property freely then the very concept of having private property becomes invalid making Bidder's Edge's actions amoral.
-James Hignite

2. Assume that you are a lawyer working pro bono on the appeal for Bidder's Edge. What arguments would you present on the company's behalf?
I think that I would present the argument that the damages to eBay were not substantial enough to warrant them winning the case. I would also argue that Bidder's Edge actually helped eBay by allowing customers to see that eBay had the best deals for what they were looking to purchase.
-Angela Goodro, Michael LaPan

Case 4- Facebook's "Unfriendly" Privacy Policies

Which of Facebook's past or present privacy policies do you find to be the most troubling?
I was shocked after reading that Facebook had initiated a policy that allowed a company to follow and track the purchases made by the user. The Beacon program seems to violate so many privacy concerns. First off I think that tracking purchases from users is a great advantage to companies but can cause the user grief. For example, companies could use the information to trend purchases and then target ads to that particular person. Secondly, I think that as a consumer I would not appreciate each of my Facebook "friends" knowing each purchase I made. This is two fold one in which I may be purchasing an item for one of my "friends". Secondly I may not want one of my "friends" to know where I shop or items I choose to spend my money on. I can see why Facebook would get negative feedback. Facebook made a smart decision to stop the program.
 - Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera
The policy that I find the most troubling is that Facebook has the ability to track what I do online, even if it is not on their website. I can understand that if I click that I like something on another website that it would show up on Facebook. But I do not like the fact that even if I don't click like that Facebook can still see what I am doing. I do not like the idea that a company is tracking what I am doing online and use it to make a profit when I am not doing it through their website. It would be a different story if they were tracking what I was doing on Facebook, but I don't think that they should be allowed to track my every movement on the web.
-Angela Goodro


Which ones are not a "big deal" in your estimation?
Facebook's decision to change its privacy settings is not a huge concern to me. In the electronic world much of this information is easily accessible. I think that many people often forget that when they put things online it is there forever. In addition, many times it is a person's "friends" who are posting pictures or information online which inadvertently can be seen by others. I can understand where someone would be alarmed by this change but given that the information is probably already accessible in other forms online it does not really concern me. I think it all boils down to people need to have common sense when dealing with information they post online. If you don't want the whole world to know it might be best NOT to document it online.
- Michael LaPan
To me, the News Feed feature is not that big of a deal to me. I like to be kept up to date with the things that my friends are doing, so the news feed feature is helpful to me. I also do not think that being tagged in a picture is not an issue. If I don't like the picture that I am tagged in, then I can just untag myself. I fully agree with Michael as well on the fact that if you don't want the world to know about something then you shouldn't put it on Facebook or the internet for that matter.
-Angela Goodro

Should social media sites be subject to more regulations to protect ensure the preservation of privacy rights?
I believe that more regulations should be placed on social media sites to protect their users privacy. This is because users often post things to social media sites without thinking about it being used for commercial purposes. For example while I rarely use Facebook and as such may just be out of the loop prior to reading this section I had never heard of the "instant personalization" scheme. This program gives Facebooks partner sites access to your information the moment you visit them without asking for your permission(Spinello p.187). Social media sites should be required to give clear and frequent warning to their users that anything they do on the site can be used for commercial means. Beyond clearly informing the visitor of this I do not believe other restrictions should be placed on the social media site as from then on responsibility fall on the sites user to protect their own privacy and know how much information is too much. This is because laws alone can not completely protect people's privacy, no amount of rules protecting people will protect them if they were to post all their personal information to a public area in a social media website such as facebook. For this reason I believe that rather than trying to restrict what the website can share the website users should be informed how it will be shared and make their own informed decision about what should and shouldn't be put online.
-James Hignite, Adam Magiera


According the New Natural Law theory life and health are one of the basic human goods essential to life. The right to privacy would fall under the right to life and health because "...privacy is a necessary condition for security, which is an aspect of the intrinsic goal of life and health, there must be a right to privacy and a correlative duty to safeguard that right". (Spinello p.166) When Facebook joined the Beacon program that exposed users online purchases to friends, that violated the users right to privacy which is unethical. I agree with Michael that it was a smart decision to end the program. Although Zuckerberg has made quite a few questionable decisions regarding privacy on Facebook, he does openly "encourage Facebook users to share their information in the spirit of openness and greater connectivity". (Spinello P. 188) I think that since he states the the views of Facebook as being open, if you don't want to join a social networking site that displays itself as open you shouldn't join in the first place. Also Facebook has changed privacy settings to the user having more control over what they share and who they share it with. I think it is Facebook's responsibility to make the settings easy and readily available to use, and the users responsibility to be aware and utilize the settings available.

-Kayla


Sources:

Facebook Privacy. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 28 Feb. 2014.<http://www.maclife.com/files/u220903/Facebook_privacy_380px.jpg>

Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.
 

Case 3- Patent War on the Web: Amazon v. Barnes & Noble

In September of 1999, Amazon.com was awarded patent no. 5,960,411 ("411") for their "one-click" ordering system that was introduced in 1997. This system enabled consumers to be able to complete an online transaction in just a single action or "one click". Barnes & Nobles introduced its own ordering system where only a single action was needed to purchase a product called "Express Lane" in May of 1998. Amazon quickly sued Barnes & Noble in violation of patent 411 and sought a preliminary injunction which would prevent the Express Lane from being used. In December 1998, the District Court sided with Amazon and granted the preliminary injunction forcing Barnes & Noble to add a second step or action. Barnes & Noble appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit and in February of 2001 the U.S. District Court vacated the injunction on grounds of the validity of the 411 patent. Eventually the case was settle out of court by Amazon and Barnes & Noble under a confidential agreement.

-Kayla

Does the Amazon one-click method meet the standards for a valid patent?

According to our text a valid patent is "novel, unknown or unused by others, not referenced in publications, must satisfy the criteria on non-obviousness and must be useful" . According to this previous quote in our book this would classify the Amazon "one-click" system as a valid patent. I agree that this type of patent should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. The "one-click" system is merely an innovation of technology. The patent itself should be placed for the coding to make this system, not merely the idea of the "one-click" system. How is it fair, if you can create a system just as good if not better, you can't use it because there is a patent on the innovation of the "one-click" system?

- Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera

Do you agree with Bezos' suggestion that cyberpatents (or business method patents) should only last 3-5 years?
Yes, we agree that cyberpatents should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. Also, if one person or company were to have complete control over an idea or business method it could create a monopoly in their favor. On page 131, Spinello states "...from a purely economic perspective, business method patents are costly because they allow companies to reap monopoly rents and this leads to a deadweight loss of consumer surplus for society."  We also believe the duration of such patents should be shortened not just for this reason but also because as such patents accumulate, it becomes difficult to not accidentally infringe on these patents when creating a new business model.(Spinello, p.131) This would greatly slow innovation in the field of business causing harm to many more people than it helps which makes it unethical to keep the standards as they are today according to utilitarianism.
 -Michael Lapan, Kayla, Angela, James Hignite, Adam Magiera

Are online patents, such as the ones awarded to Amazon and Priceline, necessary for "the progress of science and the useful arts" in the context of cyberspace? Which philosophical theory best supports your position?
My take on this case study is that Amazon should not have been allowed to patent just the idea of the "one-click" checkout. I feel that if they were seeking a patent, it should have been on something more like the coding for the one-click checkout. Another argument against Amazon being allowed to patent this idea is that it doesn't pass the "non-obviousness" criteria that is required in order to be granted a patent. For something to be "non-obvious" it cannot be obvious to anyone "skilled in the art." (Spinello, pg 107) It seems like it would be obvious to other companies in the industry that using only one click would make the checkout process easier for customers.
You can use Utilitarianism in this case to argue that giving Amazon(or any company) a patent for just an idea would not promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In fact it would do the opposite. Allowing a company to have a monopoly on an idea by way of a patent would promote more discord rather than happiness.
-Angela
I also believe that based on utilitarianism Amazon's patent was not ethical. This is because the patent was beneficial only to Amazon in helping increase their business but hurts all consumers by forcing them to take longer shopping everywhere online except Amazon. While granting an advantage like this is the intent of patents the business method patents are unique in that they harm consumers as well as rival businesses.
-James Hignite

 Some say that Amazon and other Internet companies like Priceline are adapting old ideas to new forum. Should a company be allowed to get a patent for doing this?
We agree that Internet companies are adapting old ideas to new forums. The one-click system could be compared to the express-lane or self-checkout at a grocery store. By taking this old idea and putting it in cyberspace and getting a patent is unethical. According to utilitarianism this would not promote the most good for the general good because it is not giving credit to the idea already formed. 
-Angela, Kayla

Sources:

Amazon's 1-Click Patent. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57412683-94/amazons-new-appstore-feature-could-be-patent-suit-bait/>

Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.

Case 2- Are Video Games Free Speech?

This case started out with some history about video games and how many of them contain questionable content such as violence and sexual aggressiveness. The video game industry adopted it's own internal rating system, much like movies, rating from "Early Childhood" to "A" adults only.

 Sellers were encouraged not to sell "M" rated violent games to minors without consent from parents. The state of California decided these ratings were not adequate and established a law preventing the sale of violent games to minors.
 
"Violent games were defined as those which gave players the opportunity to kill, main, dismember or sexually assault the image of a human being" (pg 96, Spinello).

This law took effect in 2005 with the reasoning being that graphic and violent video games increase aggressive thoughts and feelings in those who play. This law was quickly challenged in court by Video Software Dealers Association with the reasons being the law violated their First Amendment rights of taking away their creative expression and the definition of violence was too vague. California state argued the health and well-being of child was of more importance.
The case eventually went to Supreme Court where the question of whether or not games are entitled to First Amendment protection  like books and movies are.
In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that "..video games are no different from protected books, plays, and movies. They took communicate ideas and so qualify for First Amendment protection" (pg. 93, Spinello).

Kayla, James, and Angela agree with the Supreme Courts ruling on this case because we believe that games are just like other forms of speech and have the right to be protected by the First Amendment and the freedom of speech.

The ethical theory of contractarianism, or rights-based analysis, can apply to this case. We have the negative right, meaning "one is free from external interference in one's affairs" (pg 13, Spinello), of free speech. If this right is taken away, that can be considered unmoral. When the state of California put that law in place in 2005, it took away the Freedom of Speech because games communicate ideas just like books and movies. They should be protected the same way because that is what is legally best for all and is not violating anybodies human rights.
Kayla, James, and Angela also do not believe that their is a casual connection between aggressive behavior and violent video games because there's been no real life proof or evidence and what would have caused aggressive behavior in humans before video games if they are the cause?

Case 1- American or Australian Libel Law?

 The case our group was assigned on page 56-57 was about an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, who decided to file suit for libel(defamation) against Barron's which is owned by Dow Jones & Company. Barron's posted an online article accusing Gutnick of money laundering and tax evasion. Dow Jones & Company tried to have the trial held in the United States since that is where the company is based and where the article was published online. Mr. Gutnick argued that he should be allowed to sue in Australia because that is where his reputation was damaged.

The dilemma here is Dow Jones & Company argued that if they were allowed to be sued in Australia then Mr. Gutnick could then try and sue them in other countries that he read the article in. The High Court of Australia sided with Mr. Gutnick. The reason that they gave was that " is where the damage to his reputation of which he complains in his action is alleged to have occurred, for it is there that the publications of which he complains were comprehensible by readers." (Spinello, pg 56) Dow Jones & Company decided to settle out of court with Mr. Gutnick and issued a retraction.


                                                             Defamation:

 
The questions that we were faced with in this case are: do you agree with the ruling in this case? Why or why not? Are Dow Jones' fears unfounded or do they have some merit?
  

      I think that weather or not you agree with the ruling in this case depends on from which perspective you view the case. From the perspective of Dow Jones & Company, I do not agree with the ruling. I say this because the company is based in the United States and that is where the article was conceived and published. The laws of the country in which the company resides should be the laws that govern what the company does. To have a company be held libel for the laws of all the countries in the world is unreasonable, especially when the company is an internet based company. But from the perspective of Mr. Gutnick, the ruling was the right ruling. I say that because Australia is not only the country in which he resides, but where his reputation would suffer the most damage from the article. If he were to have sued in the United States, Dow Jones & Company could have argued that his reputation wasn't damaged because he wasn't well known in the United Sates.
     I believe that the Dow Jones' fears of being sued by Mr. Gutnick in different countries because of this same article are unfounded. But I do believe that it was reasonable for the company to fear that it could then be held libel for things that were said in their articles in other countries. Take for example if they were to post an online article about Kim Jong-un. And in the article they stated facts about him that are completely true, but the posting of such facts in North Korea, where he is the leader, were punishable by death. Should he be allowed to hold the author and publisher accountable in North Korea for his actions? Or should they be judged by the standards of the United States for libel, that the truth is a defense to libel? I know that this is a rather extreme example, but I state it to make a point.
      Using the principle for justice, you can argue that the libel case Mr. Gutnick filed should have been held in the United States. The basic formal principle of justice is that: "Similar cases ought to be treated in similar ways."(Spinello, pg 25) This case would give precedence to other similar cases in other countries. It would then allow people from one country(plaintiff) to sue a company based in another country(defendant) based on the laws of the plaintiff's country

Conflicting views in group: 

Yes I agree with the high court ruling, to allow him to be trialed within his own jurisdiction. It is clear in the article that Mr. Gutnick and his lawyers realize that it is best to complete the trial here due to the different laws. Unfortunately when things like this happen on the internet it is hard to decide as to which state or country the violation occurred. The internet allows access to the entire world. There for crimes can be committed and it can be unclear who is the responsible country or state. 

Spinello, R. (2000). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. (5 ed., p. 57). burlington main: jones and bartlett learning.

Terms & Agreements

                                                                   Google
https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

One of the websites that we had assigned to our group was the Google website. It was really easy to locate Google’s “Terms of Services.” But reading them was an entirely different story. While they were very short and broken down into different sections regarding different things, it was rather hard to understand them. One of the main things that made it difficult to understand what they were talking about is that they never explained just what services they are referring to. It would have been much easier to understand what services/websites these terms covered if they had listed them all instead of referring to them only as “Our Services.”

Using the ethical theory of Utilitarinism, Google’s terms of services can be seen as unethical. One example is that the terms and services allow Google to display “your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account.” This can be seen as unethical because the benefit of displaying a person’s internet activity is outweighed by the cost to society’s right to privacy. Another way Google's terms of services may be seen as unethical is when they say "When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." This means you are not only giving Google the rights to anything you post on the site, but anybody Google works with. This is unethical because they can take a picture you post and change or modify it and then publish it and publicly display it which can be seen as an invasion of privacy.

                                                                Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
The terms on Facebook were fairly simple to find. It was located on the homepage underneath where you would sign up for the social networking page. Reading the terms was also pretty easy as they had it broken up into sections and the wording was simple and easy enough to read and understand. At the bottom of the terms they also included a "Definitions" section which they used to defined terms some may not understand and to clarify the meaning.
Using Utilitarianism, the terms of Facebook would not be very ethical. In the second section of "Sharing Your Content and Information" it states "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." This is saying any picture or video you post, they have rights to use it. That can be considered an invasion of privacy and not very ethical. They also go on to say even after you delete it, they may keep back up copies. Another example would be Facebook saying they "appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them". This would be unethical according to the utilitarianism theory because one end  of the party is not being compensated for their work and/or ideas. That does not generate the greatest net utility for all parties involved because only Facebook would be gaining anything.

Both Google and Facebook have similar aspects in their Terms and Services. Both are well laid out and easily readable giving and understanding of terms and services of these sites. Facebook has a more in-depth description of there terms and services. Although, both share similar principles in stating their terms on things such as privacy, liability, copyright, terminating services, and use of your uploaded content. Both may review content to determine whether it is illegal or violates their policies, and they may remove or refuse to display content that they reasonably believe violates their policies or the law. Neither site will be responsible for lost profits, revenues, data, financial losses, or indirect, exemplary, or punitive damages. Neither site can guarantee that your information will be safe. They do what they can to insure the privacy and safety of your information. After submitting anything to either site, in their terms, it states that they therefore have rights to use your information, such as pictures, videos, or content, in manners they seem fit. Which I see as unethical, for if anyone else were to use your personal content it would be considered copyright infringement, but because you are uploading to their services it therefore makes it their content also. From the perspective of the user, both Google and Facebook have all the power when it comes to the terms and services. The user doesn't get to decide what Google and Facebook can and cannot see. The user also has no control over what is done with any of the information that is gathered about them.