Ethics - Do They Change Based On Generations? - Sidebar Update!

In the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and interesting post appeared this morning by Peter Lattman relating to “file sharing” copyright infringement and the University of Oregon.

It seems that when the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the school for records of students who were uploading songs on a file-sharing network, the school fought back saying that the request was violating the student’s privacy rights.

The blog is shared (?) as follows:

Today’s NYT Sidebar column spotlights the University of Oregon and its legal battle against the music industry. Go Ducks!

The Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the school in September, asking it to identify 17 students who were uploading songs onto a file-sharing network. The school, represented by state AG Hardy Myers, fought back, moving to quash the subpoena. It said the RIAA was violating its student’s privacy rights and engaging in questionable investigative practices.

The music industry has sued thousands of illegal file sharers, and most of them settle for a few grand rather than engage in a lengthy court battle. And its litigation crusade is expanding, says the Times. The RIAA gets most schools to identify alleged file sharers and pass along “prelitigation letters” to them. It told the NYT it has provided some 150 schools about 4,000 letters which offer students the chance to settle for $3,000 by punching in a credit card number at www.p2plawsuits.com.

“Certainly it is appropriate for victims of copyright infringement to lawfully pursue statutory remedies,” the AG reportedly wrote in his motion. “However, that pursuit must be tempered by basic notions of privacy and due process.” He added: “The larger issue is whether plaintiffs’ investigative and litigation strategies are appropriate.”

While Adam Liptak reports that the Oregon AG’s legal argument has little chance of success and says no one should feel too badly for music stealers, he writes “it is nonetheless heartening to see a university decline to become the industry’s police officer and instead to defend the privacy of its students.” He concludes: “All the university is saying, after all, is that the record industry must make its case in court before the university will point a finger at one of its own.”

So the ethical question that seems to be moving front and center is which protection has greater value - privacy or copyright protection. As previously mentioned, the ethical standards are becoming much more grey as technology changes the medium of distribution.

As an Ethics Speaker, I often get the opportunity to speak to young people and their choices and the consequences that follow. http://www.chuckgallagher.com A teen ethics survey is being planned for 2008 in the North Dallas area sponsored by the Choices Foundation. Do you think that teens have a strong foundation for making ethical choices?

Your thoughts on the ethics of file sharing and teen values changing.

Ethics - Do They Change Based On Generations? Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Reviews

As a professional speaker, from time to time, I receive helpful e-mails that are useful in illustrating my point about ethics, choices and consequences. On of my primary interests is Teen Ethics and how we, as leaders, influence the choices made by those who will inherit the future.

A very interesting e-mail was sent entitled “The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality” written by David Pogue. The link is here for the full copy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/technology/personaltech/20pogue-email.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The article goes on to state: “It was early in 2005, and a little hackware program called PyMusique was making the rounds of the Internet. PyMusique was written for one reason only: to strip the copy protection off of songs from the iTunes music store.

The program’s existence had triggered an online controversy about the pros, cons and implications of copy protection. But to me, there wasn’t much gray area. “To me, it’s obvious that PyMusique is designed to facilitate illegal song-swapping online,” I wrote. And therefore, it’s wrong to use it.

Readers fired back with an amazingly intelligent array of counterexamples: situations where duplicating a CD or DVD may be illegal, but isn’t necessarily *wrong.* They led me down a garden path of exceptions, proving that what seemed so black-and-white to me is a spectrum of grays.

I was so impressed that I incorporated their examples into a little demonstration in this particular talk. I tell the audience: “I’m going to describe some scenarios to you. Raise your hand if you think what I’m describing is wrong.”

Then I lead them down the same garden path:

“I borrow a CD from the library. Who thinks that’s wrong?” (No hands go up.)

“I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.” (A couple of hands.)

“I have 2,000 vinyl records. So I borrow some of the same albums on CD from the library and rip those.”

“I buy a DVD. But I’m worried about its longevity; I have a three-year-old. So I make a safety copy.”

With each question, more hands go up; more people think what I’m describing is wrong.

The exercise is intended, of course, to illustrate how many shades of wrongness there are, and how many different opinions. Almost always, there’s a lot of murmuring, raised eyebrows and chuckling.

Recently, however, I spoke at a college. It was the first time I’d ever addressed an audience of 100 percent young people. And the demonstration bombed.

In an auditorium of 500, no matter how far my questions went down that garden path, maybe two hands went up. I just could not find a spot on the spectrum that would trigger these kids’ morality alarm. They listened to each example, looking at me like I was nuts.

Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, “O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.”

There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever.

“Who thinks that might be wrong?”

Two hands out of 500.

Maybe all this is obvious to you, and maybe you could have predicted it. But to see this vivid demonstration of the generational divide, in person, blew me away.

I don’t pretend to know what the solution to the file-sharing issue is. (Although I’m increasingly convinced that copy protection isn’t it.)

I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies’ problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can’t even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?

Questions:

1. Do you think “file sharing” is unethical?
2. Should a persons creation be copyright protected?
3. Is reprinting with acknowledgements a violation of copyright protection - as has been done above?

Most Important Question:

Should we assume that ethical values change with technology and generational attitudes?

Since technology makes it easy to copy and paste perhaps protection or compensation for artistic expression needs to change as the ethical attitudes about its use changes.

Your comments are welcome.

Hannah Montana - No Tickets For False Essay - Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments

The Problem:

As reported, a six year old girl in Garland, TX had, what was thought to be a winning entry in a Hannah Montana essay contest. The essay started with the words, “My daddy died this year in Iraq.”

Problem was…that statement was false. The essay was a lie and created to win the contest.

According to the Dallas Morning News the child’s mother stated, ” “We wrote whatever we could to win,” she said. “It said to write an essay. It never said it had to be true. I never said it was true. … It was just an essay. We wrote whatever we could to win.”

Now isn’t that a skewed perspective. Lie in an essay to win and then think that such an action is alright!

The Outcome:

The prize was withdrawn according to Club Libby Lu’s chief executive officer, Mary Drolet. For more information about the withdrawn prize the following was contained in the Dallas Morning News article written by Tawnell D. Hobbs:

Asked why the prize was withdrawn, spokeswoman Robyn Caulfield referred to a prepared statement from Ms. Drolet. The statement said the company had wanted to take ample time to gather facts and make an “appropriate decision” on whether to award the concert tickets and other prizes to the family. It said the company had learned the essay was false after awarding the grand prize.

“We value honesty and integrity, and in order to uphold those values, we have made the decision we have made,” Ms. Caulfield said, referencing Ms. Drolet’s statement.

The company will award the concert trip to another girl, according to Ms. Drolet’s statement. The name of the new winner is being withheld to maintain the family’s privacy, the statement said.

The Lesson(s):

Every choice has a consequence. This is a statement that is made in most every presentation I give. http://www.chuckgallagher.com

Whether it is to a business organization, an association, or a group of teens or college students, ethical behavior has one common thread - you cannot escape the consequences of the choices you make.

Certainly in this case the consequences fell into several areas:

1. One the little girl was taught a lesson from her mom - Winning at all costs will not yield a positive result if the win comes from a dishonest foundation.
2. Mom has shown her ethical foundation based on the comments she made and considering the publicity she has received, she is the recipient of consequences as well.
3. The example shown by Club Libby Lu as set a standard and example for young girls “tweens” as they are called. I respect Ms. Drolet for taking the stand for ethical behavior and allowing the consequence for unethical behavior to take place.

Perhaps this simple chapter might make a life long impression on the life of a little six year old and be a message for others to take head from.

Every choice has a consequence and doing “whatever we could to win” will not always yield positive results.

Your comments are welcome. Do you agree with the position taken by Club Libby Lu?

Texas District Attorneys - Houston and Dallas - In The News - Choices and Consequences?

Every choice we make has a consequence. It seems that two Texas District Attorneys are making the news for two very different reasons and it’s all because of their choices.

First let’s go to Houston:

It’s a few days after Christmas and what to my wondering eyes do I see, but the Houston DA playing e-mail with (well his secretary it seems).

According the the AP Texas news, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal apologized to his family, friends and co-workers when his affectionate relationship with his secretary was released from e-mails he sent.

Before we move through the story…the first point of attention here: E-mail doesn’t go away and one should not say something in an e-mail that they would not want to have made public - or else, you might find yourself in the same hot water that this Houston, TX District Attorney has found himself in.

Here’s a link to the full story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5408753.html

Although the DA called the release of e-mails, obtained as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit, “bare knuckle politics.” According the the AP article:

“the district attorney issued a written statement saying the release has been “wake-up call to me to get my house in order, both literally and figuratively.”

“I understand that I have said some things that have caused pain and difficulty for my family, my co-workers and friends,” Rosenthal said in the statement. “I deeply regret having said those things.”

None of the 51 e-mails between Rosenthal and Kerry Stevens are explicit, according to the Houston Chronicle, which obtained the documents before they were resealed. But they contain the phrase “I love you” more than a dozen times, and Rosenthal asks Stevens to let him hold her.

“The very next time I see you, I want to kiss you behind your right ear,” Rosenthal wrote Stevens in an e-mail dated Aug. 10, 2007.

“I always want to see you,” Rosenthal wrote in another e-mail. “You own my heart whether you want or not.”

Rosenthal said earlier this week he is not having an affair with Stevens. He said he had an affair with her in the 1980s when he was married to his first wife, but said the relationship did not lead to his divorce.”

Every choice has a consequence. In this case, the consequence thus far has been public embarrasment and pain to his family and himself.

Of course, there will likely be public outcry from his opponents. That’s to be expected. But the DA is human and subject to human feelings and emotions. The lesson for all is not so much what we think, but how we act on those thoughts. Ethics aren’t defined so much by our thoughts but mostly by our actions.

Now on to Dallas:

In this time of a constricting economy, it is important to pay your bills on time, especially if it’s your annual dues to retain your law license.

It seems that the Texas state bar suspended Craig Watkins’ law license for failing to pay his annual dues on time. Hum, a DA without a license - you gotta find some comedy in that.

Anyway, the story was reported on December 27th by the Dallas Morning News (a link to which follows)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetwatkins.59450853.html

Now, Mr. Watkin’s license has been reinstated after he learned that the amount had not been paid. According to the article written by Kevin Krause:

Mr. Watkins apologized for the lapse and said it won’t affect any criminal cases. But he was still under the impression as of Thursday afternoon that he hadpaid his annual bar dues back in September.

News of the suspension sent officials in his office and in other county offices scrambling for answers as to what it would mean.

All criminal indictments and plea bargains are issued in Mr. Watkins’ name.

“It’s a mistake that is embarrassing to me but doesn’t affect the citizens of Dallas County,” Mr. Watkins said.

Watkins has received national attention for talking about crime prevention and supporting using DNA evidence in overturning or reviewing old criminal convictions. In fact, Texas Lawyer named Craig Watkins “Impact Player of the Year.” Excerpts are reprinted below:

…Watkins has every intention of breaking with tradition. He is the first African-American elected district attorney in Texas history, the first Democrat elected Dallas County DA in 20 years, and the first Dallas County district attorney who, in less than a year, has radically altered the traditional law-and-order role of the prosecution.

…Watkins’ focus is as much on preventing crime as it is on prosecuting it. Taking a more holistic approach to his job, he speaks of re-entry programs for ex-inmates and drug treatment programs, as well as garnering the social-service energies of the community to prevent small-time crooks from becoming big-time crooks and to prevent citizens from becoming victims in the first place.

Hey Craig…you don’t need this kind of coverage especially since you do stand for justice. How about putting on your calendar now to pay your dues on time next year.

Remember - Every Choice Has A Consequence. As a business ethics speaker, I know all too well the effect that choices can have on one’s life. My best to both of these men as they have placed themselves on the line for law and justice. There jobs are hard and regardless of anyones political persuasion, we should support those who commit to public service.

Your comments are welcome.

Hannah Montana and An Ethics Meltdown - Anything For Success? Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher Comments!

A sad story out of Garland, Texas (not far from my home in Southlake, TX). A story of Iraq, a little girl, compassion and all for Hannah Montana tickets.

The little girl was six years old who won Hannah Montana tickets to a sold out concert for the touching essay she wrote. What a special reward for a girl who touched the hearts of those who read.

The essay was a fake - the story told a lie! All done to influence the judges and win the tickets. Ethical choices gone bad and at six years old (and get this) with the knowledge (and likely help) of her mother.

The Associated Press story featured on CNN is shown below: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/29/fake.essay.ap/index.html

Here’s what took place:

• Club Libby Lu, a store that sells clothes, accessories and games intended for young girls based out of Chicago, sponsored a contest which included airfare for four to a sold-out Hannah Montana concert on January 9th in Albany, NY.
• The little girl who won had an essay whose first line began with: “My daddy died this year in Iraq.”
• The story wasn’t true!
• Priscilla Ceballos, the little girls mother, told an interviewer with KDFW (a Dallas, TX TV station), “We did whatever we could to win.”

Mary Drolet, the CEO for Club Libby Lu stated, “We regret that the original intent of the contest, which was to make a little girl’s holiday extra special, has not been realized in the way we anticipated.” The company is considering taking away the girls tickets.

What should the outcome be?

I seriously doubt that a six year old girl could come up with a deception that contrived on her own. She had to have had help and her mother has as much admitted her part in the overall deception.

If the little girl were allowed to keep the prize, including the tickets, it would send a clear message that unethical behavior (regardless of who made the decision) is alright. It’s not alright!

If the little girl had the tickets revoked, while she would likely be hurt, it would demonstrate at a very young age, something that I state to groups all over the country, that every choice has a consequence. Reality is, by your choices you determine the consequences you receive - negative consequences (loss of the tickets) or positive results (enjoyment of the prize).

Either way, her mother, through national attention, has been exposed as a liar and a person who was willing, as she put it, to do “whatever we could do to win.” The likely outcome for their family will play out in many ways for time to come.

What do you think the outcome should be? Your comments are welcome.

Do you think that children and teens are taught ethics or is ethical behavior instinctive? Again, your comments are welcome.

For now, Motivational and Ethics Speaker, Chuck Gallagher signing off.