Balancing the Scales

Contributors: Büşra Akkökler Karatekeli, Gülizar Karahan Balya

The Story

MEIN Sports, a prominent local media company represented by its legal advisor, Ms. Richter, holds the broadcasting rights for a local football match. Access to viewing all contents on MEIN Sports, either partial or whole, requires a paid subscription. One evening, a video of this match was uploaded to two free video-sharing platforms: WaVi, a local platform owned by Mr. Zia, and FLOW, an international platform based in a technologically advanced country. Neither platform had obtained permission from MEIN Sports, the owner of the video’s broadcasting rights. 

Upon discovering the unauthorized uploads, Ms. Richter acted quickly by submitting takedown requests to both platforms. From her earlier experience she knows that WaVi, being a local enterprise bound by national laws, would be more accessible and respond quickly to the takedown request. If WaVi did not remove the copyrighted content promptly, according to the national law, after three successive incidents of the same sort, the owner would have to appear at the chief public prosecutor’s office. The verdict, once issued, must be implemented immediately, threatening the existence of the local platform in many ways and tarnishing the owner’s reputation as “mismanaging.” From the perspective of WaVi, removing copyrighted content promptly may not always be possible due to lack of personnel.

She also knew that, in contrast, due to the complexities of international law, FLOW would take over a week to address takedown requests. In the meantime, the content on FLOW that violates the copyright law would continue to be broadcasted online. This procedural delay would mean that FLOW remains less affected by swift local regulations.

Ms. Richter struggles to decide the timing of the take-down request, considering the different impacts it would have on the two video platforms due to the disparity between local and global law enforcement. 

INSTRUCTOR’S GUIDE

STEP 1:

Identify the decision-maker and formulate the ethical dilemma they find themselves in.

Ms. Richter is the decision-maker. 

Ethical dilemma: Should Ms. Richter act promptly in making the takedown request in which way she would protect her employer’s rights OR delay the takedown request in which way she would protect WaVi, a national asset, against FLOW, a powerful global counterpart?

strives to protect her employer’s rights while also striving not to contribute to the disappearance of a national asset against a powerful global counterpart. What should she do?

STEP 2: Identify all affected parties (the stakeholders)

Note that you should consider not just the most obvious people or parties, but every individual or group who will be affected by the decision, both directly and indirectly. 

• Ms. Richter
• MEIN Sports 
• WaVi
• FLOW
• Mr. Zia
• Employees of WaVi
• WaVi users
• The broader tech industry (for trust)

STEP 3: 

3.a. Identify the possible actions of the decision-maker. 

Action 1: Acting promptly in making the takedown request 

Action 2: Delaying the takedown request

3.b.  For each possible action forecast the likely outcomes in terms of pleasure/benefit/happiness and pain/harm/suffering for every stakeholder group you listed in

Step 2. You can delete the content and use the following tables as templates.

3.c. As the last step, students highlight the outcomes that yield the greatest Pleasure/Benefit/Happiness and Pain/Harm/Suffering for each possible action on the table. 

E.g. For Action 1, the highlighted outcomes in terms of Pleasure/Benefit/Happiness could be:

– increased job security and peace of mind as a result of loyalty to the company and complying with the law and the company rules (Ms. Richter) 

– protection of copyrights and increased profits (MEIN Sports)

For Action 1, the highlighted outcomes in terms of Pain/Harm/Suffering could be:

– increased risk of losing its market presence and decreased profits (WaVi), 

– dissatisfaction due to inaccess to free content (WaVi users) 

– anxiety over potential prosecution due to the delay in removing unauthorized content and distress over decreased income (profits), and ultimate company shutdown (Ms. Zia)

STEP 4: Assess the highlighted outcomes for each action in terms of the following:

• Extent: How many people are affected?
• Intensity: How strong is the pleasure, benefit or happiness in each outcome? 
• Certainty: How likely is it to occur?
• Duration / Proximity in time: How near or remote is it in time?

E.g. For Action 1, the highlighted Pleasures concern only Ms. Richter and MEIN Sports, including the company’s owners, shareholders and employees. On the other hand, the highlighted Harms concern Ms. Zia, WaVi and WaVi users. In terms of EXTENT, the Harms of Action 1 seems to outweigh the Pleasures. However, 

In terms of Intensity, the highlighted Pleasures of Ms. Richter and MEIN Sports can be argued to outweigh the highlighted Harms of Ms. Zia, WaVi and WaVi users.

In terms of Certainty, …

In terms of Duration / Proximity in time, …

Ultimately, decide whether the Pleasures or Harms outweigh for each action considering all stakeholders and all possible pleasures/harms with the above aspects. E.g. For Action 1 creates moderately intense, certain and long-lasting satisfaction for a moderate number of people, whereas it creates intense, certain and short-lived dissatisfaction for a high number of people (WaVi users). Here one may argue that For Action 1, intense, certain and long-lasting satisfaction of the few outweighs intense, certain and short-lived dissatisfaction of the many.

STEP 5: Students try to weigh Action 1 against Action 2 based on the “Net Utility” for each. According to the utilitarian calculus:

Net Utility = Total Happiness – Total Suffering 

The action that results in the highest net utility (the greatest good for the greatest number) is the morally right one according to utilitarianism. However, utilitarianism is criticized for its simplistic and quantitative approach. Therefore, you do not need to stick to hard numbers. Instead, feel free to use qualitative comparisons like “Action 1’s net utility as a result of the intense, certain and long-lasting satisfaction of a few” is positively higher than “Action 2’s net utility as a result of the mild, short-term, short-lived satisfaction of many.”

Finally, state your conclusion: “Based on the utilitarian calculus, Action 1 is the ethically justified choice because it produces the greatest net positive outcome.”

STEP 6: Address common criticisms.

• Rights and Justice: Does the “ethically justified action” violate someone’s rights or is it unjust? E.g., Does Action 1 (acting promptly in making the takedown request) result in any injustice? A utilitarian must argue that the overall good outweighs any possible injustice.
• The Problem of Calculation: Is it really possible to accurately measure and compare different people’s Pleasure/Benefit/Happiness and Pain/Harm/Suffering? 
• Impartiality: Utilitarianism requires strict impartiality. Being a decision-maker, can we truly ignore our special obligations to family, friends, or our company? 

EXTRA TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:

Extra information: Ms. Zia believes that their company should have received support in its competition against the global platform. She cites the example of French Dailymotion, which received support from the French government via selective support or protective measures until the local platform becomes technologically robust enough to compete effectively with global counterparts.

• Should governments take action to influence the free-market ecosystem?
• Is there an ethical obligation for governments to protect national technological assets?
• If yes, what measures can governments implement to foster technological growth and competitiveness for local tech firms in a global market?

• Does the representative of the owner of the copyrighted content have an ethical obligation to consider the broader societal implications of her actions on local platforms?
• Do users bear any ethical responsibility for consuming unauthorized content?

KEY CONCEPTS:  

• Protection of copyrighted content
• Viability of local tech companies as against global
• Impact on local businesses
• Global vs. local enforcement imbalance
• Regulatory fairness
• Fairness and equity
• Overregulation vs. Underregulation 
• Company/Corporate loyalty
• Democratization vs. Corporatization