The Ethics of Innovation: p2p Software Developers and Designing Substantial Noninfringing Uses Under the Sony Doctrine (original) (raw)

Abstract

This essay explores the controversy over peer-to-peer (p2p) software, examining the legal and ethical dimensions of allowing software companies to develop p2p technologies. It argues that, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sony betamax case, technology developers must be accorded the freedom to innovate and develop technologies that are capable of substantial noninfringing uses. This doctrine, known as the Sony doctrine, provides an important safe harbor for technological development, including p2p. The safe harbor, however, does not immunize conduct beyond the design, sale, or supply of the product. For other conduct that falls outside the Sony safe harbor, the traditional standards of secondary liability apply.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Open Source

Chapter © 2016

References

• Apple: 2004, ‘The iTunes Music Store Countdown to a 100 Million Songs’, http://www.apple.com/itunes/100million/.
• Associated Press, ‘Apple’s iTunes Sells 250 Million Songs’, Jan. 24, 2005.
• Barnes, K.: 2004, ‘2004: A Happy-News Year for Music Industry,’ USA Today, Jan. 6, 2005, D1.
• D. Chisum (2004) On Patents § 17.03[3] Mathew Bender & Co. Newark
  Google Scholar
• C. Christensen (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma Harvard Business School Press Cambridge, MA 143–158
  Google Scholar
• Easley, R. F.: 2004, ‘Ethical Issues in Industry Response to Innovation: The Case of the Music Industry’ (working paper).
• F. Easterbrook (1999)ArticleTitleCyberspace Versus Property Law?Texas Review of Law & Policy 4 103–113
  Google Scholar
• M. Fagin F. Pasquale K. Weatherall (2002)ArticleTitleBeyond Napster: Using Antitrust Law to Advance and Enhance Online Music Distribution_Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law_ 8 451–573
  Google Scholar
• W. Fisher (2004) Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment Stanford University Press Stanford, CA
  Google Scholar
• W. Gordon (1984)ArticleTitleFair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and Its Predecessors_Columbia Law Review_ 82 1600–1657
  Google Scholar
• Hatch, O.: 2004, News Release, ‘Hatch Introduces Bill to Stop Inducement of Children to Commit Crimes’, June 22, 2004.
• Heine, P.: 2004, ‘Infinity Exec Exits Amid Controversy’, Reuters, Nov. 27, 2004 (online).
• O. W. Holmes (1897)ArticleTitleThe Path of the Law_Harvard Law Review_ 10 457–478
  Google Scholar
• L. M. Ivey (2003–2004)ArticleTitleLosing the Battles, Winning the War: Public Nuisance as a Theory of Gun Manufacturer Liability in Tort_Cumberland Law Review_ 34 231–251
  Google Scholar
• Jardin, X.: 2004, ‘Music Is Not a Loaf of Bread’, Wired, Nov. 15, 2004 (online).
• P. N. Katz R. R. Riddle (2004)ArticleTitleDesigning Around a United States Patent_South Texas Law Review_ 45 647–684
  Google Scholar
• Keaten, J.: 2005, ‘Music Industry Upbeat Over Online Sales’, Associated Press, Jan. 22, 2005.
• W. Landes R. Posner (2003) The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law Harvard University Press Cambridge, CA 10
  Google Scholar
• J. Lardner (1987) Fast Forward: A Machine and the Commotion It Caused W.W. Norton & Co. New York 26–30
  Google Scholar
• M. Lemley R. A. Reese (2004)ArticleTitleReducing Digital Copyright Infringement Without Restricting Innovation_Stanford Law Review_ 56 1345–1434
  Google Scholar
• D. Lichtman W. Landes (2003)ArticleTitleIndirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective_Harvard Journal on Law and Technology_ 16 395–410
  Google Scholar
• J. Litman (2001) Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet Prometheus Books Amherst, N.Y. 106–107
  Google Scholar
• D. McGowan (2004)ArticleTitleCopyright Nonconsequentialism_Missouri Law Review_ 69 1–72
  Google Scholar
• ‘Music’s Brighter Future’, The Economist, Oct. 28, 2004, pp. 71–73.
• R. R. Nelson S. G. Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA 128–129
  Google Scholar
• N. W. Netanel (2003)ArticleTitleImpose a Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free Peer-to-Peer File Sharing_Harvard Journal of Law & Technology_ 17 1–84
  Google Scholar
• Oberholzer-Gee, F. and Strumpf, K.: 2004, ‘The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis’, pp. 1–51.
• R. C. Picker (2003)ArticleTitleFrom Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright_University of Chicago Law Review_ 70 281–296Occurrence Handle10.2307/1600559
  Article Google Scholar
• G. Rich (1953)ArticleTitleInfringement Under Section 271 of the Patent Act of 1952_George Washington Law Review_ 21 521–546
  Google Scholar
• C. Sunstein (1994)ArticleTitleIncommensurability and Valuation in the Law_Michigan Law Review_ 92 779–861
  Google Scholar
• G. Szott Moohr (2004)ArticleTitleThe Crime of Copyright Infringement: An Inquiry Based on Morality, Harm, and Criminal Theory_Boston University Law Review_ 83 731–782
  Google Scholar
• J. Tehranian (2003)ArticleTitleAll Rights Reserved? Reassessing Copyright and Patent Enforcement in the Digital Age_University of Cincinnati Law Review_ 72 45–94
  Google Scholar
• T. Wu (2003)ArticleTitleWhen Code Isn’t Law_Virginia Law Review_ 89 679–751
  Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A
   Edward Lee

Authors

1. Edward Lee
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toEdward Lee.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, E. The Ethics of Innovation: p2p Software Developers and Designing Substantial Noninfringing Uses Under the Sony Doctrine.J Bus Ethics 62, 147–162 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0186-4

Download citation

• Issue Date: December 2005
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0186-4

Keywords