[Air-l] copyright considerations

Mon Sep 3 08:54:30 PDT 2001

While copyright is a concern, it is not considered, at least in the 
U.S., a principles that directly guides research ethics. In the U.S., 
at least, most (if not all) human subjects research at universities 
is governed by The Belmont Report (Ethical Principles and Guidelines 
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, The National 
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and 
Behavioral Research, April 18, 1979 (see 
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm). To 
quote from the report, its basic principles are:

"1. Respect for Persons. -- Respect for persons incorporates at least 
two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as 
autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy 
are entitled to protection. The principle of respect for persons thus 
divides into two separate moral requirements: the requirement to 
acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with 
diminished autonomy."

[stuff deleted]

"2. Beneficence. -- Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only 
by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also 
by making efforts to secure their well-being. Such treatment falls 
under the principle of beneficence. The term "beneficence" is often 
understood to cover acts of kindness or charity that go beyond strict 
obligation. In this document, beneficence is understood in a stronger 
sense, as an obligation. Two general rules have been formulated as 
complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: (1) do 
not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible 
harms."

[stuff deleted]

"3. Justice. -- Who ought to receive the benefits of research and 
bear its burdens? This is a question of justice, in the sense of 
"fairness in distribution" or "what is deserved." An injustice occurs 
when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without 
good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly. Another way of 
conceiving the principle of justice is that equals ought to be 
treated equally. However, this statement requires explication. Who is 
equal and who is unequal? What considerations justify departure from 
equal distribution? Almost all commentators allow that distinctions 
based on experience, age, deprivation, competence, merit and position 
do sometimes constitute criteria justifying differential treatment 
for certain purposes. It is necessary, then, to explain in what 
respects people should be treated equally. There are several widely 
accepted formulations of just ways to distribute burdens and 
benefits. Each formulation mentions some relevant property on the 
basis of which burdens and benefits should be distributed. These 
formulations are (1) to each person an equal share, (2) to each 
person according to individual need, (3) to each person according to 
individual effort, (4) to each person according to societal 
contribution, and (5) to each person according to merit."

All of these principles can be considered in relation to copyright, 
at least insofar as whether it be texts or web sites or what have 
you, the material in question is the work of a human being. However, 
these are principles, and can therefore only give us guidance. They 
are interpreted in particular ways, such interpretations also being, 
in their enacting into laws, rules, etc., subject to the unequal 
distribution of power. Moreover, they are applied in particular 
contexts. Both copyright law and guidelines for ethical research 
differ from place to place and country to country. That's an issue 
not only because Internet use doesn't conform easily to those 
boundaries, but also because Internet research doesn't conform to 
them so easily, either.

Sj

At 6:43 AM -0400 9/3/01, radhika gajjala wrote:
>On email lists this blurring is more apparent than on websites without
>synchronous components - it is easier to treat websites as "published"
>material than it is the interactions on email lists. Does one treat email
>list participants as "human subjects" or "texts"...or something
>else/more/less altogether?
>
>As I type to a general public email discussionlist, I realize the
>imaginedness of most of my audience, so perhaps this is an act of
>"publishing" -but as I respond directly or indirectly to Nancy Baym or
>Sandra Braman or Barry Wellman (who have probably never really seen me f2f
>or might not even consider this email as addressing them directly,
>interpersonally - just as I have lost track of who actually started this
>thread) is this an act of "talking" .... and what if to complicate things
>even more I were not posting from within the US but from somewhere where US
>academic or corporate or other laws and "ethics" mean nothing 
>contextually ....
>
>
>just adding more to the pot of confusion (I worked out some answers when
>doing my research, so I'm not as confused as i sound, but the working out is
>always tactical/strategic and contextual - emphasis on contextual because it
>is so easy to lose sight of the multiply mediated contexts online...)
>
>r
>
>
>At 08:21 PM 9/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>This raises for me an interesting aspect to the ethics struggle,
>>which is that if something is copyrighted, we OWE it to the author to
>>give full credit, which comes up against research ethic traditions of
>>hiding identities of subjects when studying online discussion. I
>>struggled with this with some of the more creative posts I quoted in
>>my work and erred on the side of anonymity over credit. Nancy.
>>
>>
>>>   works that can be copyrighted in the us must meet the following criteria:
>>>
>>>- be the EXPRESSION of an idea (ideas can't be copyrighted)
>>>
>>>- be ORIGINAL (be accomplished by the author)
>>>
>>>- be CREATIVE (involve at least a modicum of intellectual activity by the
>>>author -- an emotive grunt, even by an author, is not copyrightable)
>>>
>>>- be FIXED (be in some form that permits it to be reproduced)
>>>
>>>works do NOT have to be good, unique, or novel (new) -- or have any economic
>>>value.
>>>
>>>since 1978, copyrightable works are covered by copyright from the moment of
>>>production, even if there is no copyright notice and even if the work is not
>>>registered with the copyright office.  (however, one cannot pursue copyright
>>>infringement without registration and notice.)
>>>
>>>e-mail, websites, etc., whether fortunately or unfortunately, generally meet
>>>these criteria.
>>>
>>>sandra braman
>>_______________________________________________________________
>>Nancy Baym, Communication Studies
>>University of Kansas
>>NEW! email: nbaym at ku.edu
>>NEW! snail mail: 102 Bailey, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
>>NEW! url: http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Air-l mailing list
>>Air-l at aoir.org
>>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
>>
>>
>___________
>Radhika Gajjala
>Assistant Professor,
>Dept of Interpersonal Communication/School of Communication Studies
>tel - 372-0528
>http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik
>http://www.cyberdiva.org
>http://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000/4425/
>fax: 419-372-9841
>
>__________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l