The Ethics of Accessing the Work of Others
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
The Ethics of Accessing the Work of Others
Abandonware: The Ethics of Accessing the Work of Others
Word Count: 1627
Consumer software is a relatively transient product when compared to the work of other professionals. While the average software application may last over a decade, this belies the fact that software is iterative and constantly changing—subject to new “versions” and “patches” that we don’t see in more material creations like bridges or cars. “Abandonware” is a term that broadly refers to a range of software that is old or abandoned. By most definitions, including Merriam-Webster’s online (2016), it is “software that is no longer sold or supported by its creator” where “support” refers to the process of upkeep and maintenance that software must undergo to remain functional. A lack of software support is typically due to a creator’s decision to stop support, but may also come from the creator becoming defunct. With the release of new operating systems and hardware, old software eventually becomes nonfunctioning due to this lack of support. One of the easiest ways to fix this is for the wider internet community to begin to support the product in place of the company. This typically involves fans or current users who are knowledgeable in software engineering and programming to “crack” the program in question, circumventing security features put in place by the creator and either modifying the preexisting code or injecting new code. Yet this is a topic that is both legally and ethically divisive in the field, pitting software engineers against one another. I will be arguing that cracking abandonware to preserve access to previously purchased software is ethical because it benefits the greater public good and does not unduly harm other professionals. Comment by Nate Olson: Clear thesis—states position and the main reasons the author will give to support this position.
While any software, regardless of its intended audience, can be considered “abandonware” the primary form of software that is preserved and shared is the video game. This can be attributed to several reasons, but the primary reasons are arguably the wide appeal and unique nature of video games. Video games, unlike most software, offer a distinct experience that cannot necessarily be replicated or improved by a newer version or sequel. Video games are subject to some of the strictest security measures of any software type. Of particular note, and central to the ethical case study I will be examining, is “Always-On DRM”. This is a security measure that forces a piece of software to remain connected and be persistently authenticated by an online server owned by the creator or publisher. While not a problem when the company is still actively supporting the program, this security measure becomes a huge issue once a video game becomes “abandonware”. When a company stops supporting their software that also includes the discontinuation of the authentication server. The software, when run, checks for an authentication server that no longer exists and therefore “fails” the authentication check. The software can no longer be run in this state. Reactivating the server is not something the company is open to doing, so a workaround must be found if continued use of the software is desired. The easiest, quickest, and cleanest way to circumvent this is to “crack” the software itself and disable the server authentication check. By either fully disabling the security check or tricking it into believing that the check was passed, the software can be fully accessed. The Library of Congress, who is responsible for DMCA copyright exceptions, actually addressed this specific case recently, making it legal for players to “…modify their copy of a game to eliminate the need for an authentication server after the original server is shut down” (Higgins, Mcsherry, Stoltz and Walsh). Comment by Nate Olson: Clear summary of the topic in this paragraph, and this is a good use of an outside source at the end of the paragraph.
There are several ethical issues involved with the cracking of abandonware that I will discuss: the utilitarian duty of the software engineer to the “most happiness,” the Kantian right of the content owner and content creators to be treated as “ends” not mere “means,” and the prima facie duties of the software engineer who is cracking the software. The distribution and cracking of abandonware is, despite the case mentioned previously, typically illegal. While some abandonware has had its copyright officially waived, the vast majority is still protected by copyright and the redistribution and modification of it is not permitted under the law. However, legality is not the sole or even necessarily the best indicator of the ethical nature of an action. Utilitarianism calls for the “maximization of overall happiness” and it seems to be a rather obvious point that the general public’s happiness at being able to continue access to their software would outweigh the unhappiness of the content creator’s whose work is being accessed. (Rowan and Zinaich, 19) It is clearly an overall net gain for the public to crack the software. Yet this is potentially a case where the majority is acting as a tyranny and utilitarianism is not prescribing a “fair and ethical” course of action as outlined by Rowan and Zinaich in their critique of act-utilitarianism. (17) Utilitarianism would also dictate cracking the software in all cases, including piracy, since the happiness of the general public upon obtaining free software would greatly outweigh the grave unhappiness of the developers. Yet what differentiates piracy from the case of cracking to allow previous owners continued access? Comment by Nate Olson: Clear sign-posting Comment by Nate Olson: Strong discussion of utilitarianism in this paragraph. The paper cites details from the text, shows how utilitarianism would assess the case, and makes a perceptive point about why utilitarianism is not the best approach to take.
“Abandonware” is not a permanent, immutable state for software. Software can be re-released by both the original publisher as well as new publishers who license the publishing rights. This is particularly true for video games which, like other forms of media such as movies, are often re-released as “remastered” or “updated” editions to fans. The re-release of a program offers a chance for creators to make continued profits from their intellectual property by offering an updated and supported version of their program. As well, ownership of a piece of software is not analogous to the act of owning nearly any other item. When purchasing software it is standard practice for the user to be purchasing a license to use a piece of software. Therefore the user does not have a right to continued access to a program. In Rowan and Zinaich it is mentioned that Kant’s categorical imperative dictates that people should always “…treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as and end and never as a means only”. (27) The user asserting a continued right to access to a program could be argued as a violation of the rights of the creators to discontinue service—the user is treating the creator as a “means” to gain a program they wish to use rather than as an “ends” and respecting the fact that the creators no longer wish to offer their provided service. Comment by Nate Olson: Good use of Kant here to illustrate the main ethical concern on the side of the creators of the software.
The software engineer who cracks the software must weigh the potential benefits and harm to both the public and the creator/copyright holder when deciding whether their actions will be ethical. W.D. Ross’ version of deontology lists seven duties he considers to be central to ethical action and in his reasoning we can find a solid argument for cracking the software. The primary difference between cracking for piracy and cracking for continual access is the duty of nonmaleficence or the duty to not harm others. (Rowan and Zinaich, 32) While piracy is a clear financial harm to the creators of the software, cracking the software so that owners can continue to access it reduces the harm significantly. The creators already made a profit from the initial sale of the program to the user, so no sale is ‘lost’ with the continued use of the program and therefore no harm is inflicted. Comment by Nate Olson: Thoughtful application of Ross’s ideas to this case.
A potential objection to my argument is that the cracking of the software creates a tool that would help pirates. Pirates could use the crack to gain access to the software without ever purchasing it by sharing the original program’s files and using the crack to circumvent the security features. As well, the argument could be made that allowing further access to the original program would hurt sales for a new, updated or rereleased version of the program. Both of these arguments state that the software engineer, upon cracking the program, would in fact be harming the creators. Yet, I would argue that the creation of a tool that aids an illegal and unethical act does not necessarily make the tool or making of the tool illegal or unethical. The tool itself is not causing harm since, in the vast majority of cases, it is distributed by itself and every other file needed to run the program is not provided. Those who legally own the program have the files they need already—it is the illegal sharing of those files that I would argue is unethical and causing harm to the creators. The second argument is a true one and is therefore more difficult to address—there is financial harm in the fact that the user isn’t forced to buy a new version. However, if a company’s business plan is to purposefully deprive people of access to an item to force them to buy a new version, I would argue that the creators are violating the categorical imperative. They are using the users as means to gain money rather than as ends who may prefer to simply use the older product. The company is robbing the users of their autonomy to pick whether they prefer the older or newer versions of a product by eliminating the older version entirely. Comment by Nate Olson: Good objection to address. It raises a reasonable challenge to one of the author’s main points. Comment by Nate Olson: Logical and well-developed replies to the objection in the rest of the paragraph.
Abandonware is an important legal and ethical grey area in the field of software engineering. While cracking abandonware can lead to unfortunate side effects like piracy, I argue that the overall public good outweighs the potential and limited harm caused to the content creators. A software engineer that cracks the software of another engineer’s making is acting ethically if the crack allows users to access their legally obtained software once more. Comment by Nate Olson: Brief conclusion that restates thesis and ties things together.
Works Cited
- “Abandonware.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
- Higgins, Parker, Mcsherry, Corynne, Stoltz, Mitch, and Walsh, Kit. “Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 27 Oct. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
- Rowan, John R., and Zinaich, Samuel, Jr. “Deontological Ethics.” Ethics for the Professions. Ed. Rowan and Zinaich. Wadsworth, 2003. 22-31. Print.
- Rowan, John R., and Zinaich, Samuel, Jr. “Deontological Ethics. – W.D. Ross” Ethics for the Professions. Ed. Rowan and Zinaich. Wadsworth, 2003. 31-35. Print.
- Rowan, John R., and Zinaich, Samuel, Jr. “Utilitarian Ethics” Ethics for the Professions. Ed. Rowan and Zinaich. Wadsworth, 2003. 12-21. Print.
6
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!