Freedom of the Internet

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
ala1993
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:20 pm

Freedom of the Internet

Post by ala1993 »

To what extent should the internet be 'free'? By this, I don't mean 'free of charge' but rather unrestricted as far as illegal activity is concerned. Should an individual be actively prevented from accessing sites which host or facilitate the acquisition of copyrighted content or is this tantamount to preventing said individual from making their own choice about whether they wish to acquire it? Is it possible to argue that no-one visits such a site unless they wish to acquire said content so this justifies blocking access to the site?

Part of this debate hinges around the concept of 'intellectual property'. To what extent can we claim that something we have created rather than acquired either as a gift or through monetary exchange is 'ours'? If we can make this claim at all then it follows that the creation in question is not public property and it is up to the owner as to whether it is publicly available. Conversely, rather than 'intellectual property' being a kind of property, might we simply be using the term 'property' to bestow an absurd quality on the creation?

Given that this is an ethics board, I suppose I should consider this question in the light of ethical theory. From a deontological stance we would need to ask about the contradiction in allowing 'property' to be 'public' - if something is 'property' then it belongs to someone, but if it is 'public' then it belongs to everyone (and thus, no one person has any greater claim over it). However, if something belongs to all people then there is no need for it to be designated as 'property' because we do not need to distinguish any one person or group over and above others as the owner. It follows that property cannot be public as the former is necessarily exclusive while the latter is inclusive.
One way around this would be to abandon the idea of property altogether. However, if we do away with the idea of ownership (which is a necessary consequence) then what ramifications might this have for the notion that we 'own' our bodies and that our actions are our own? We cannot do away with the idea of property entirely.

Another problem encountered by this stance is that of the prevention of moral choice. By limiting access to websites we prevent individuals from being able to choose this particular action for themselves (a necessary component of moral responsibility). A third problem is that we set arbitrary parameters as to what can be accepted as property, inasmuch as we censor those creations that are deemed to be socially corrupting in some way. It could be argued that not only idea and the existence but also the use of (e.g.) torrent websites is tantamount to a questioning of the limits of availability of media; if there were no problems with the conventionally accepted system (paying for media) then such sites would pose little or no threat. To censor them is to wall up a path laid for dissent, a necessary component of democratic society.


I realise that there are many other positions that can be taken (and other ethical theories through which this issue can be examined) but as I want to start a discussion rather than give a lecture I'll leave it open and see what others think.
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Freedom of the Internet

Post by Impenitent »

write a book or publish a magazine (or any other media) and have the contents printed online ...

everyone can see it for free

what happens to the incentive to write?

you think all published authors do it for free?

enjoy your free labor for the commune...

-Imp
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Freedom of the Internet

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

Haha sorry, I read it as “Freedom from the Internet”
and was dying to see what people were saying!
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Freedom of the Internet

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

ala1993 wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:26 pm To what extent should the internet be 'free'? By this, I don't mean 'free of charge' but rather unrestricted as far as illegal activity is concerned. Should an individual be actively prevented from accessing sites which host or facilitate the acquisition of copyrighted content or is this tantamount to preventing said individual from making their own choice about whether they wish to acquire it? Is it possible to argue that no-one visits such a site unless they wish to acquire said content so this justifies blocking access to the site?

Part of this debate hinges around the concept of 'intellectual property'. To what extent can we claim that something we have created rather than acquired either as a gift or through monetary exchange is 'ours'? If we can make this claim at all then it follows that the creation in question is not public property and it is up to the owner as to whether it is publicly available. Conversely, rather than 'intellectual property' being a kind of property, might we simply be using the term 'property' to bestow an absurd quality on the creation?

Given that this is an ethics board, I suppose I should consider this question in the light of ethical theory. From a deontological stance we would need to ask about the contradiction in allowing 'property' to be 'public' - if something is 'property' then it belongs to someone, but if it is 'public' then it belongs to everyone (and thus, no one person has any greater claim over it). However, if something belongs to all people then there is no need for it to be designated as 'property' because we do not need to distinguish any one person or group over and above others as the owner. It follows that property cannot be public as the former is necessarily exclusive while the latter is inclusive.
One way around this would be to abandon the idea of property altogether. However, if we do away with the idea of ownership (which is a necessary consequence) then what ramifications might this have for the notion that we 'own' our bodies and that our actions are our own? We cannot do away with the idea of property entirely.

Another problem encountered by this stance is that of the prevention of moral choice. By limiting access to websites we prevent individuals from being able to choose this particular action for themselves (a necessary component of moral responsibility). A third problem is that we set arbitrary parameters as to what can be accepted as property, inasmuch as we censor those creations that are deemed to be socially corrupting in some way. It could be argued that not only idea and the existence but also the use of (e.g.) torrent websites is tantamount to a questioning of the limits of availability of media; if there were no problems with the conventionally accepted system (paying for media) then such sites would pose little or no threat. To censor them is to wall up a path laid for dissent, a necessary component of democratic society.


I realise that there are many other positions that can be taken (and other ethical theories through which this issue can be examined) but as I want to start a discussion rather than give a lecture I'll leave it open and see what others think.


Dear ala1993,

I may wish to partake here, but have got a couple of questions first:

a) To make sure I understand it, the question is: From [any] deontological perspective, what sort of access is reasonable that we have to other’s intellectual property via the Internet?

b) You say it’s a necessary consequence, but why is it that we must abandon the idea of ownership if we abandons the notion of property? Might you have meant the opposite, rather...?


Humbly
Hermit
Post Reply