Peer-to-peer file sharing services and machine emulators escape legal liability of copyright infringement under the justification that their software are not designed to be used to infringe copyrights. The Limewire file sharing software even has a provision in its End-User License Agreement (EULA) that the user of the software agrees not to use Limewire for copyright infringement. The Multi-Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) banners in its website that the MAME project is primarily for scientific and academic purposes to preserve the architectural mechanism of old arcade machines. A probable hypothesis is that most users of Limewire and MAME use these software to download and use without license copyrighted material. However, due to justifications for use of these software, protectors of intellectual property are unable to ban them. Whenever software is stated in this article, it refers to software which may be utilized to infringe copyrights.
A balance is currently being formulated in cyberspace: preservation of copyrights and freedom to progress computing technologies. In theory, file sharing per se does not violate the law, it actually enhances interconnectivity; arcade machine emulation alone is not illegal, as long as no copyrighted game is run in an emulator. The issue arises: can undertakings justified by theories but in reality fully abused to infringe intellectual property rights be legally allowed?
On one hand, legislation cannot be crafted in a manner which arises from fear of abuse as long as the policy behind it is valid. Knives should not be banned because of the fear that they might be used for criminal means instead of culinary purposes.
On the other hand, legislation cannot be blind to the blatant fact that these software are abused by virtually everybody to infringe copyrights. Guns are banned because although having a gun does not necessarily mean intent to kill, the sheer power of a gun to harm individuals makes it a good policy to ban guns altogether.
However, these software are not as simple as knives and guns. Unlike a weak knife and like a powerful gun, the ease and potential of software to do harm are enormous; hence the justification to outright outlaw software widely used for copyright infringement. But like a useful knife and a unlike a useless gun which purpose is only to harm, software can be utilized to greatly benefit technological progress; hence the justification not to outlaw them due to fear of abuse. Which policy is better?
The heart of the issue must be uncovered. There must be distinction between the different aspects of the undertakings in question and not treat them as a whole. The question should not be whether entities should be prohibited from making potentially copyright infringing software. The root of potential infringements should be identified.
Software development which incidentally may produce tools to infringe copyrights cannot be prohibited by the dangers of using them may bring; these are pursuits of knowledge which cannot be outlawed. It is not the act of producing software which should be prevented, only the use of the software for illegal purposes. Copyright infringement through use of powerful software is not due to the creation of these software, it is free distribution which put these software in the wrong hands.
The root of the abuse of these software to infringe copyright lies in their free distribution, not their creation. What should be changed is the free access to the full features of these software. It is unwise to distribute powerful tools which may cause harm freely. Distributing knives and guns to everyone on the street would surely exponent the use of these tools for the wrong reasons. The same applies to software with the ability to infringe copyrights.
The prudent policy therefore is to regulate distribution of these software. The justifications of why these software should exist is not defeated by formulating parameters in the distribution of these software. Only those who would further the justification of the existence of these software should be allowed to obtain and use them. Casual users should not be able to download Limewire and MAME if they are not affiliates or authorized by institutions which are justified to use Limewire file sharing or MAME emulation. Similar to guns, existence of these software should not be outlawed, but distribution should be regulated to individuals who need them. This way, technology is utilized to benefit humanity without opening avenues for abusers to inflict more harm than good.
Advances in technology should never be impeded. Like any other tool, software can be used for either good or bad. The object of legislation is to prohibit the happening of “bad” acts while upholding “good” ones. The proper way to deal with great power is not to prohibit it; it is to instill responsibility in its use. As Ben Parker said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
No comments:
Post a Comment