Question: How ethical is it to provide misleading and partial information in a so-called "Cyber-Ethics Champion Code" [PDF]?

According to a press release published on the Music Industry News Network, the Business Software Alliance has launched a new Play It Cyber Safe campaign to educate children about copyright (New E-Tools Available For Parents, Educators To Teach Children About Online Copyrights). The campaign consists of the afore-mentioned Cyber-Ethics Champion Code and a Certificate of Recognition [PDF] for those children who sign off on the "Champion Code."

This effort raises quite a number of questions. First of all, what is so damned "E" about these new tools? They are, as far as I can tell, simply PDF documents. Is placing a PDF on the web all you need to call something an "E-Tool" nowadays? You would think that an "E-Tool" provided by the Business Software Alliance would include at least some sort of enterprise server functionality or something. Still, it will probably look good in the annual report to donors to talk about the "E-Tools" made available. Already it seems, in this so-called "ethics" campaign, that the BSA is playing fast and loose with meaning.

Now, supposedly, this is a "Cyber-Ethics Champion Code." These champions, however, seem strangely focused on one topic, that of software copyright. Now, its fine if the BSA wants to educate kids about software copyright, but that hardly makes the children exposed to the BSA's one note campaign "Cyber-Ethics Champions." One would think that a "Cyber-Ethics Champions Code" would address more issues than software copyright (and a little bit about privacy hardly improves matters).

With those initial questions out of the way, let's look at the code itself (numbers simply for organization, the actual document doesn't number the elements of the code).

Item #1:

I look for the copyright symbol (©) whenever I add a new program or game to my computer.

And the point of this is? The presence or non-presence of the copyright symbol is of importance only in arcane issues of copyright law interesting only to lawyers. To act as if this is important for children is to give them the misleading idea that the presence of the symbol has critical meaning, which it doesn't. Most of the rules of copyright children should be aware of do not hinge on the presence or absence of the copyright symbol.

Item #2:

I know that the copyright owner gets to decide how many times a software program can be copied. That means I can’t copy the software that is running on my home computer unless the license for that program says I can.

Umm, not quite. One is always permitted to make a backup copy whether the copyright holder wants to allow that or not, 17 USC 117. Of course, it is unremarkable that the BSA's code finds no room to mention fair use, or other limitations on the copyright holder's works.

Item #3

I will not make unauthorized copies of my games or computers programs for my friends. That is against the law.

Well, at least they have the "unauthorized" part in there. Interestingly, no mention of music of movies. I guess those are okay.

Item #4

While I may bring my software CDs to my friends’ house, I will not let them make copies on their computers unless the license says I can. Copying software is like stealing.

Umm, really, what is the point here? I can see that the BSA wants to close down the loophole of "I didn't make the copy, but I didn't stop my friend from making a copy." However, why is taking the CDs to a friends' house relevant? Why would you take software CDs somewhere only not to copy them?

At least there is acknowledgement that infringement is not stealing, but only "like" stealing. Unfortunately, the differences aren't really pointed out.

Item #5

I will not download copyrighted software programs from Internet "file-sharing" networks. It is not okay to share something without the owner’s permission.

We've lost the "unauthorized" here. Many legitimate programs are shared via "file-sharing" networks. Heck, file-sharing is one of the fastest and easiest ways to get the latest Linux distributions nowadays. In any case, we have to talk a little bit more about the ethics of sharing here. Why is "file-sharing" different than the other kind of sharing that is usually encouraged in schools? Is the intention to scare kids away from all sharing? If not, perhaps a little more clarification would be in order.

Item #6

I will not use software programs that appear to have been copied. Just because someone is selling a software program or a friend gives it to me doesn’t mean it is legal.

How about, the contrary "just because someone is giving away software doesn't mean it is illegal"? Given the major economic and social role played by open source software, you would think that ethical guidelines would take this into account.

Item #7

I keep my passwords and personal information, like my address and phone number, to myself. I do not share personal information with anyone (except my parents and they already know it!)

Something that has nothing to do with software copyright. How did that slip onto this list?

And don't get me started on the teachers' guide (Reprogram Your Thinking About Software Theft [PDF]). Okay, just one favorite quotation:

Emphasize that plagiarism is not only copying someone else’s words and claiming them as your own, but it also extends to stealing any plots, ideas, etc.

Which would basically make most of the members of the BSA dirty, filthy plagiarists.

via Furdlog