Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The comparisons that were established during the implementation of the Communications Decency Act are significant because it forms regulations based on conditions that were current and protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment has multiple factors including the right to freedom of speech for all individuals in the U.S. These comparisons are important because they are all different forms of communication types of speech that would be protected under the First Amendment. Adequate assessments and comparisons will allow lawmakers to make fair and effective regulations. The differences between libraries, televisions, and public places are the various forms of how information and speech are communicated to audiences. The library has articles, books, journals, online databases, and other sources to provide information and free speech to users (First Amendment, 2019). Television has TV programs, different shows, broadcasts, and advertisements to get a message across. The public places are areas such as local parks, auditoriums, street corners, etc., where individuals can assemble to communicate a message. The main similarity is that all of these methods of information transfer are protected under the First Amendment for freedom of speech. However, the First Amendment does not protect against violence speech, hate, racism, supporting terrorism, employment, intellectual property or copyright infringement, and threats (Holland, 2012). The internet has both similarities and differences from libraries, televisions, and public places. The internet is similar to libraries in that both sources provide vast amounts of information to users. In addition, most libraries now provide online databases and digital book formats. However, I believe a significant difference is the copyright laws at libraries are more regulated as compared to the Internet (Rose, 1995). This has brought rise to Internet monitoring and laws from law enforcement that punishes individuals to break these crimes. The internet is similar to television because of the vast amounts of videos that are uploaded to share a message with users. The same forms of communication from television are also present on the Internet through online video sites such as Youtube. The internet differs because video content can be uploaded by any individual as compared to television which shows and programs are chosen by the television station. The Internet regulations for this have created laws that protect against copyright infringement and also enforce websites to take down any content that breaks the law. Copyright laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) also extend to anything that is posted online (Baase & Henry, 2018). Public places are similar to the internet in that locations could be accessed through both methods. A difference is that the internet is much faster and capable of delivering information; an example is live streaming. This has created internet regulations for users and streaming sites to abide by the laws and regulations.
These microchips implanted in pets are primarily used to contact an owner in case a dog/cat is lost and found. My pet also has a microchip implanted and the doctor stated these chips contain my contact information and can be scanned to retrieve my information and to contact me. However, there are risks associated if the same technology is used in children. The privacy implications here are to the privacy principles and risks. Key aspects of privacy are to have freedom from intrusion, control of personal information, and freedom of surveillance (Baase & Henry, 2018). There are some benefits to having this in children in case a child is lost, however, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. This is because the present risks here are if the child is too young to understand the uses of personal information, the risks of the chip being hacked by unauthorized users, theft of information by someone else with a scanner, and inadvertent leakage of this personal information (Baase & Henry, 2018). In addition, I do not believe it is constitutional and right for a parent to make the decision to have a microchip implanted in a child because it should be a decision made by the child. In addition, the child will be too young to understand the context and make an informed decision. If Congress wanted to pass a law to require implants in children under 5 years, I would not support it due to the inherent risks of personal information. More importantly, a parent should be responsible and not misplace their child instead of trying to put additional control to be negligent. Rather than a microchip, there could be more effective alternative technologies such as a smartwatch. It would be non-invasive, and information could be protected similarly to the protection from iPhone, and possible to have SOS functions as well as GPS tracking in emergencies.
The free market view allows consumers to have the freedom to decide on agreements, maintain personal preferences and values, respond to changing markets based on consumer demands, use contracts, and assess regulatory solutions (Baase & Henry, 2018). The perspective for consumer protection view consists of the uses of personal information, protection from errors that arise in databases, leakages in personal information, and protection from consumers own deficient skills, knowledge, and judgment (Baase & Henry, 2018). These two viewpoints differ in disclosing personal information about their customers as the free market view allows customers to make decisions based on personal information, whereas the consumer protection viewpoint aims to protect consumers even when they lack knowledge. An example of the free market is the phone application that allows users to check yes, and the user gives the program permission to access and share personal data. Regarding issues in errors of data that are shared by the credit bureau, the consumer protection view is in place to protect consumers from this information. Only banks, loan agencies, and credit card companies can contact and report personal information to the credit bureau; for example, if a bill is past due and not yet paid. In addition, these companies also protect consumers from issues such as fraud and identity theft.
An opt-in policy requires a collector of information may use the information only if the person explicitly permits the user, typically through a checked agreement box; an opt-out policy is where an individual must explicitly request, through a checked agreement box, for an organization to not use personal information (Baase & Henry, 2018). For example, filling out a magazine survey, the end of the survey could have questions of two types asking if;
Check box to share this information to our data, would be an example of an opt-in policy because the checked box agreement allows the use of information. By contrast, the end of the survey could state, Check box to keep this survey information private and not shared, which would be an example of out-out because checking this box does not allow the magazine to use the survey data and it must be kept private.
A negative right or liberty right is the right to act without interference from any other individual or party; examples include the right to life, the right to property, to be free from assaults and theft, the right to utilize skills, knowledge, exchanges, trading, and labor (Baase & Henry, 2018). Positive rights or claim rights are rights that impose obligations on certain individuals to provide to others; examples include the right to jobs means that a company must hire an individual regardless of a job voluntarily chooses to do so, the government providing job programs for individuals not able to find work, the right to life means that people with jobs will need to pay taxes in order to provide food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves (Baase & Henry, 2018). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has two main provisions which are (1) prohibits the production, sharing, the creation of tools such as software or hardware to break through technological copyright protection systems and (2) includes copyright materials from the Internet for users to post materials online (Castro, 2014). The penalty for violating the above laws is serious offenses that often result in felonies.
The Fair Use Doctrine consists of four factors for consideration with each factor varying in significance based on specific circumstances; the purpose and nature of use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount and significance of the specific materials used, and the overall effects on the potential market and value of using the copyright materials (Baase & Henry, 2018). In both the RIAA vs. Napster and MGM vs. Grokster, copyright cases are related as they were both file-sharing services. This also created an emergence for users to easily copy, download, and share software, music, movies, programs, and other copyrighted materials. The framework of the two programs was also similar in that it provided efficient searching methods for users to find files such as music, movies, or programs from other users. These two cases are different in that Grokster did not have a centralized server that support the searches whereas Napster did have a central indexing system and created search results across Napsters network (Case study, 2019). Since both companies argued because their site was peer-to-peer and that there were no files stored on-site, the website or search engine was protected under the DMCA and Fair-Use Doctrine. Both cases were also similar in the outcome as the courts found both companies liable to sue for all copyright infringement materials.
Deontological theories of ethics are often based on a philosopher name Immanuel Kant. This theory focuses on the act of duty and absolute rules regardless of a good or bad outcome, a concept of universal rules that are applicable to all individuals, ethical behaviors are based on logic and reason, and always treat others fairly and truthfully not as a means but as an end (Baase & Henry, 2018). An example of Deontological theory is not to lie. This theory of ethics differs from the Utilitarian theories of ethics, primarily based on philosopher John Stuart Mill; includes factors that assess an individuals utility to satisfy personal needs and values, consideration of positive and negative outcomes to all affected people to calculate the overall utility (Baase & Henry, 2018). An example of this theory is the Robin Hood story in which Robin Hood steals from the rich to give to the poor. This is justified under this theory because of the utility of giving to the poor which consists of many people more than the wealthy victim losing money. A weakness in Utilitarian theory also differs from Deontological theory in that Utilitarian does not account for individual rights where Deontological theory does.
References
- (2019). Case Study: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Retrieved on October 19, 2019, from https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/case-study-am-records-inc-v-napster-inc/
- (2019). First Amendment and censorship. American Library Association. Retrieved on October 18, 2019, from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship
- Baase, S., & Henry, T. M. (2018). The Gift of Fire. Pearson Education Inc. 5 ed.
- Castro, F. (2014). The digital millennium copyright act. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property. Retrieved on October 18, 2019, from https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/04/03_3JIntellProp32004.pdf
- Holland, D. M. (2012). 7 things the First Amendment doesnt protect. Retrieved on October 19, 2019, from https://www.business2community.com/social-media/7-things-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-0129234
- Rose, L. (1995). The emperors clothes still fit just fine. Retrieved on October 20, 2019, from https://www.wired.com/1995/02/rose-if/
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.