Monthly Archives: February 2013

Over the weekend I was able to enjoy the film ‘Side Effects.’ At the heart of the plot there is an example of Ethical Egoism at work and I am interested in what input the class has towards this subject since it was difficult to come up with specific scenarios with this Moral Theory at work.

*** SPOILER ***  – If you have not seen this film, I only touch on a few specific plot points.

Pharmaceutical companies approach Psychiatrists in order to encourage participation in trials of a new behavior-altering drug.  There is monetary compensation involved in this deal.  In turn, these doctors propose to candidate patients that they will receive free medication for agreeing to the test study.   In the end, the companies are getting cheap, effective trials, the mental health patients are getting free medication, and the doctors are getting paid.  This is a perfect example of all parties involved acting purely out of self-interested and providing happiness for everyone.

Is this system moral? Kantianism vs. Ethical Egoism.

In the early stages of visiting Kantianism we are presented with a category of morality based on us cooperating with each other by not using each other as means to an end.  In this example of actions between users, everyone involved is ‘using’ each other in some manner.  By definition, any rule involved in these specific actions would be immoral.  The companies should perform more proper trials on their drugs before FDA approval.  The psychiatrists should diagnose patients with no bias.  The patients should be wary of experimental medicine and not make decisions on drugs based solely on monetary gain/loss.

When delving into Ethical Egoism, an entire different point of view is uncovered.  Everyone involved, by using each other as a means to an end, are gaining the most happiness through their mutual interest.  Again, by definition, this is a moral action because everyone’s self-interest is maximized.  Are there additional negatives surrounding this issue, however?  If there are complications that arise from treatment, who is the one at fault?  The companies should not put people at risk through untested medications.  The doctors should not fuel decisions based on anything but expertise on their practice.  People should not put themselves at risk by taking experimental pills.  Hypothetically all three parties could point the finger at each other.

I saw this article talking about how “a group of 13 industry associations – including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Marketing Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada” are petitioning for the ability to have unrestricted access to your computer and adjoining resources to prevent piracy. This quote, from the site, explains what is being requested.

This provision would effectively legalize spyware in Canada on behalf of these industry groups. The potential scope of coverage is breathtaking: a software program secretly installed by an entertainment software company designed to detect or investigate alleged copyright infringement would be covered by this exception. This exception could potentially cover programs designed to block access to certain websites (preventing the contravention of a law as would have been the case with SOPA), attempts to access wireless networks without authorization, or even keylogger programs tracking unsuspecting users (detection and investigation). Ensuring compliance with the law is important, but envisioning private enforcement through spyware without the involvement of courts, lawful authorities, and due process should be a non-starter.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other business groups want to ensure that the anti-spam law does not block their ability to secretly install spyware on personal computers for a wide range of purposes. In doing so, these groups are proposing to turn the law upside down by shifting from protecting consumers to protecting businesses. The comment period on the draft regulations may have closed, but it is not too late to tell Industry Minister Christian Paradis or your local Member of Parliament to reject demands that would gut the anti-spam bill and legalize spyware for private enforcement purposes.

The problem stems from the fact that these companies products are not a physical object that can only exist at one place at one time, but instead exist digitally and can be replicated. In this instance the involved companies and organizations are more than willing to sacrifice the right to privacy afforded to their customers in favor of allowing invasive monitoring software to “ensure” that their software is not being pirated.

Prior to this (as mentioned in the article) Sony caused a scandal by including in their compact discs a root kit to protect their intellectual property (digitalized music in this case). One problem was that their root kit created vulnerabilities in the customers machine making it susceptible to malware. The other problem was it violated the rights of customers and resulted in a number of law suits against Sony, and ultimately a discontinuation and removal of the root kit.

Other organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA have used a different tactic best described by Grand Moff Tarkin, “[f]ear will keep them in line.” This fear has been recently realized in the case of Aaron Swartz case, but has been going on for a while by bullying and extorting people with egregious lawsuits demanding huge sums of money to force an out of court settlement.

This doesn’t even address the issue of how much revenue is truly lost due to piracy? In this case it seems that the customer is best off voting with their dollars (or lack there of, OSS) and political processes when the opportunity permits.

To wrap it up, here is a humorous image illustrating the differences between pirated movies and purchasing the DVD.