End User License Agreements: Bruce Willis

846 Words2 Pages

1. In the Bruce Willis article, the main conflict arises because we typically think of physical assets under the “First Sale Doctrine” whereby we retain the right to “sell, display, or otherwise dispose of that particular copy.” Digital Content, on the other hand, is subject to “End User License Agreements” (EULAs) which specify that only the first purchaser may enjoy access to the copy and rights are not transferable.
Using at least one ethical theory, do you think it is morally defensible that Bruce Willis and others cannot transfer the ownership of digital assets to their children, but they can transfer physical assets such as a house?

1. I think the theory of utilitarianism is the best morally defensible that Bruce Willis and others …show more content…

However, based on 1854. Copyright Infringement - the first sale principle has showed that Bruce Willis and others cannot transfer the ownership of digital assets to their children but physical assets. Because physical assets are not a matter of society utility. Additionally, the first sale principle provides right to a copyright holder to lend, sell, give away, and destroy the copyrighted item. Since the song owners has sold the copyright to the Apple, Apple has right to end user license privilege.

2. In the articles on Social Media and Youtube, the major issue surrounds ownership rights to the content that a person uploads to social media sites. Do you think that people should retain ownership rights to content uploaded to such sites? Use at least one assigned reading to support your …show more content…

According to the text book, “the internet has been heralded as a means to ensure equitable access to information and democratic ideas.” (Ciulla, Martin, & Solomon, 2017) So far, those sites are not equitable and democratic.

I think that people should retain full ownership right to content uploaded to those sites. Those sites are only video sharing websites. Those sites do not create the videos. Those videos are created and shared by the content creators. One of those sites – YouTube has made over hundred thousand dollars by adverting on their front page. YouTube has stated in its terms of service that the content creators “retains all ownership rights to the content”.
This means that all content creators have the ownership rights, which are the rights to upload and removed videos as their will. However, when the content creators have removed the videos from YouTube, those videos still save and remain on its server as unknown time. Besides, it is actually a way for YouTube to avoid the liability for all contents.

Importantly, YouTube is just a host for people to upload and store their videos. YouTube should not have right to keep their video on its serve. For example, I lend out an empty house. The renters have brought their furniture when they move in. Although their furniture is in my house, this does not mean I own their

Open Document