Special Notice!
Please note I had a question on presentation summaries, so I will repeat what I said and put on the white-board before the first presentation was given.
Please turn in one summary per group for each presentation you see (no individual ones, and please don’t give me a summary of your own group’s presentation). Using a 12-14 font, double spaced; you must include the topic, the 3 main points, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of the presentation.
Please write this in an essay format. You can bring it to the next class or email it to kasmersensei@yahoo.com if you think you can’t make it to the next class.
You noticed that in the P2P presentation today, the group told you that the Winnie developer was found guilty and then later the verdict was reversed as the developer was found not to be responsible for how people used his program. In other words, he couldn’t know for sure if people would share copyrighted material or not when he developed his program.
But you have to wonder, this is a little different than making a car, and not being sued because drivers get drunk and run people over with it. I would think an inventor of a program that allows people to upload and download files on the Internet would realize, if I simply release this P2P program for free, many people are going to use it to gain illegal copies of various files (music, TV programs, movies, etc.). Obviously much of it is going to be copyrighted material.
I suppose you could look at it another way though. When Albert Einstein was involved with splitting the atom, he knew the final invention might be used as a weapon, but he hoped it wouldn’t, and that if it was, he considered the US government to be a lesser evil than letting Hitler’s government use it.
So which was it, was the Winnie developer careless, simply unaware of how his product might be used, or simply thought that allowing people to upload and download files was a lesser evil?
Or perhaps you have some other explanation? Let us know your opinion.