Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Exploration of the Ideologies of Software Intellectual Property: The Impact on Ethical Decision Making

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article helps to clarify and articulate the ideological, legal, and ethical attitudes regarding software as intellectual property (IP). Computer software can be viewed as IP from both ethical and legal perspectives. The size and growth of the software industry suggest that large profits are possible through the development and sale of software. The rapid growth of the open source movement, fueled by the development of the Linux operating system, suggests another model is possible. The large number of unauthorized copies of software programs suggests that many people do not believe in laws regarding software copyright. There are many and varied views of software as IP, even within the information systems (IS) profession. In this article, four distinct subgroups of IS professionals are identified. The article describes the four subgroups and their respective ideological views on software ownership; it explores the subgroups’ attitudes regarding software laws; and finally, it explains the ethical positions embraced by each subgroup.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DRM:

Digital rights management

FSF:

Free Software Foundation

FSI:

Free software ideologue

GNU:

Gnu’s Not Unix

GPL:

General Public License

IP:

Intellectual property

IS:

Information systems

OSA:

Open source advocate

OSI:

Open source initiative

PP:

Proprietary proponent

PWA:

Pirates With Attitude

RIAA:

Recording Industry Association of America

SA:

Software anarchist

References

  • 15 U.S.C. §1127

  • 17 U.S.C. §117

  • 17 U.S.C. §504

  • 35 U.S.C. §§ 100–103

  • Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3rd Cir. 1983)

  • Barker J. (2004) Grossly Excessive Penalties in the Battle Against Illegal File- Sharing: The Troubling Effects of Aggregating Minimum Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement. Texas Law Review 83(2):525–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer S. (1970) The Uneasy Case for Copyright. Harvard Law Review 84:281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G. (2004) Culture’s Open Sources: Commentary. Anthropological Quarterly 77(3):575–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Software Alliance: (May, 2005), Second Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Report. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://www.bsa.org/ globalstudy/upload/2005-Global-Study-English.pdf

  • Clark D. (2002) How Copyright Became Controversial. In Thierer A., Crews C. W., Jr (Eds) Copy Fights: The Future of Intellectual Property in the Information Age. Cato Institute, Washington D.C., pp. 147–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman G. (2004) The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast. Anthropological Quarterly 77(3):507–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (N.D. Ill., 2004)

  • Coombe R., Herman A. (2004) Rhetorical Virtues: Property, Speech, and the Commons on the World-Wide Web. Anthropological Quarterly 77(3):559–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copyright Act of 1790, Ch.15, 1 Stat. 124

  • Davis, R.: (February 2001), The Digital Dilemma. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 77–83

  • De George R. T. (2003) The Ethics of Information Technology and Business Technology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (Breyer, J. dissenting)

  • Epstein, R.: (June 2005), The Creators Own Ideas. Technology Review. Retrieved August 13, 2005, from http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/ feature_creators.asp

  • Faldetta G. (2002) The Concept of Freedom in Resources: The Open Source Model. Journal of Business Ethics 39(1/2):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. III.: 1999, Geistiges Eigentum – ein ausufernder Rechtsbereich: Die Geschichte des Ideenschutzes in den Vereinigten Staaten. Eigentum im internationalen Vergleich(Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), pp. 265–91. English language version, entitled “The Growth of Intellectual Property: A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States,” retrieved on July 27, 2005 from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iphistory.pdf

  • Fitzgerald B., Feller J. (2002) A Further Investigation of Open Source Software: Community, Co-ordination, Code Quality and Security Issues. Information Systems Journal 12:3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Free Software Foundation: 2005, Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding. Retrieved June 26, 2005, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.

  • Gallaway T., Kinnear D. (2004) Open Source Software, the Wrongs of Copyright, and the Rise of Technology. Journal of Economic Issues 38(2):467–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallini N., Scotchmer S. (2002) Intellectual Property: When is it the best incentive system? Innovation Policy and the Economy 2:51–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, B.A.: 2004. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (West Group: St. Paul, MN).

  • Hars A., Ou S. (2002) Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open Source Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(3):25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipple E. (2001) Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source Software. MIT Sloan Management Review 42(4):552–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.: (December 1988), The Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366

  • ICO: International Chamber of Commerce 2005, Intellectual Property Explained: Introduction. Retrieved July 24, 2005, from http://www.iccwbo.org/home/intellectual_property/presentation/introduction.asp

  • Johnson D. (1994) Computer Ethics. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J. (2002) Open Source Software: Private Provision of a Public Good. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 11(4):637–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L. (2001) Copyright’s First Amendment. UCLA Law Review 48:1057–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanellos M. (2005) Gates’ Commie Quote Inspires the Masses. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://news. com.com/2061-1003_3-5519680.html.

  • Leaffer M. (1999) Understanding Copyright Law. Matthew Bender, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J., Tirole J. (2002) Some Simple Economics of Open Source. The Journal of Industrial Economics L 2:197–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L. (2001) Copyright’s First Amendment. UCLA Law Review 48:1057–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmer M. B. (1970) Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press?. UCLA Law Review 17:1180

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Source Initiative: 2005a, FAQ:Advocacy. Retrieved June 26, 2005, from http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php.

  • Open Source Initiative: 2005b, The Open Source Case for Hackers. Retrieved on September 2, 2005, from http://opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_hackers.php.

  • Osorio-Urzua, C.: 2002, A Contribution to the Understanding of Illegal Copying of Software: Empirical and analytical evidence against conventional wisdom. Retrieved March 14, 2003 from http://opensource.mit.edu/online_papers.php.

  • Palmer, T. G.: 1990, ‚Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13(3), 817–865

    Google Scholar 

  • Patent Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 109

  • Patent Act of 1793, 1 Stat. 318

  • Pfaffenberger B. (1999) Open Source Software and Software Patents: A Constitutional Perspective. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 12(3):94 –112

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, A.: 1967, Patents and Copyrights. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, p. 130 (originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1964)

  • Raymond E. (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 12(3):23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Recording Industry Association of America, Press Room press releases dated November 18, 2004; December 16, 2004; January 24, 2005; February 28, 2005; April 12, 2005; April 27, 2005; May 26, 2005; June 29, 2005; July 28, 2005. Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/default.asp

  • RIAA Targets New Piracy Epidemic on Special High-Speed Campus Network: (April 12, 2004), Recoding Industry Association of America Press Room Newsletter. Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/041205.asp.

  • Salin, P.: 1991, “Freedom of Speech in Software.” Retrieved July 24, 2005 from http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html.

  • Schmidt D. (2004) Intellectual Property Battles in a Technological Global Economy: A Just War Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(4):679–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallman, R. J.: 2001, “Free Software Foundation.” Available: http://www.gnu.org/fsf/fsf.html

  • Strasser, M.: 2001, A New Paradigm in Intellectual Property Law?: The Case Against Open Sources. Stanford Technology Law Review, REV. 4 http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4

  • Tai, L.: (July 2001), The History of the GPL. Retrieved on September 3, 2005, from http://www.free-soft. org/gpl_history/

  • United States Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

  • United State Department of Justice. (May 4, 2000). U.S. Indicts 17 in Alleged International Software Piracy Conspiracy. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/pirates.htm

  • United States v. Rothberg, 222 F.Supp.2d 1009 (N.D. Ill., 2002)

  • United States v. Slater, 348 F.3d 666 (7th Cir., 2003)

  • Walleij, L. (2005). Copyright Does Not Exist. Retrieved May 15, 2005 from http://kotnik.ns-linux.org/soliloquia/files/ Copyright-does-not-exist.pdf.

  • Williams S. (2002) Free as in Freedom. O’Reilly and Associates, Sebastopol, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter S. J., Stylianou A. C., Giacalone R. A. (2004) Individual Differences in the Acceptability of Unethical Information Technology Practices: The Case of Machavellianism and Ethical Ideoloby. Journal of Business Ethics 54:279–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The World Intellectual Property Organization: 2004, WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use, 2nd ed. Geneva: WIPO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Management and Administration, Bradley University, 1501 W. Bradley Ave., Peoria, IL, USA

    Matthew K. McGowan, Paul Stephens & Dexter Gruber

Authors
  1. Matthew K. McGowan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dexter Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew K. McGowan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGowan, M.K., Stephens, P. & Gruber, D. An Exploration of the Ideologies of Software Intellectual Property: The Impact on Ethical Decision Making. J Bus Ethics 73, 409–424 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9215-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9215-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation