Ethics

In this section, the paper aims to present the four different meanings of responsibility. The first type of responsibility is Role Responsibility - It is a certain duty or expectation accorded to an individual because of hisher appointment into a role or it hisher occupation. The second type is Causal Responsibility - this is given to an individual when heshe is the cause of the event which that person is currently. In other words the person responsible is the one who caused or the origin of the event. The third type of responsibility is Blameworthiness  this kind of responsibility is toward a person who did a particular action which caused an untoward event or situation. Individuals are often blameworthy when they are not able to do a certain task or duty given to that person. The last responsibility is Liability  a person is responsible for somethingsomeone if heshe is held responsible by a certain rule or law.

For the next part of the paper, does categorical imperative prohibit the selling of software Based on the categorical imperative theory, there is nothing wrong with selling computer software (Johnson, 2000, p. 31). What identifies it is how it is done. For example a person selling has both the accountability to be honest and to not use coercive methods of selling. Also the paper inquires the user to present. For a sample of a conjectural scenario of selling software in a dishonest not presenting in a truthful method what software really does. For coercive practices in selling software, a supposed example of selling software is forcing them to buy software by pointing a firearm at their forehead and giving them grave choices if they dont decide to buy the software.

The next part of the paper deals with Princes argument for treating mass-market software as a product and the sale of customized software as provision of service. Prince recommended that we treat mass-marketed software with the same treatment as products, and on the other end treat combinations of customized software as a sort of provision of a service. In cases where there is a combination of mass-marketed and customized software, the then situation should be treated as a combination. From an error or defect perspective, if the error is from the mass-marketed segment of the product, then the Product Law should be followed, however if the error originates from the modification, laws related to services should be the one used in dealing with the problem.

This paper also defines and describes Strict Liability. Strict Liability demands that a person be held liable for damages and loss that may have been caused by a persons acts and omissions. The user of strict liability is justified by three factors  1) Items must be placed within the commerce stream as instructed by the UCC, 2) the producer of the product is in the best position (compared to the other players) to project and foresee risks accorded by a particular product and lastly, 3) the producer is in the best vantage point to widen the injury cost across all the buyers by including it within the cost of the product (Johnson, 2000, p. 10).

The next part of the paper deals with Negligence and the difficulty in showing that a software producer has instances of negligence in hisher work. Negligence basically is the incapacity of a person to do something that someone would normally do (e.g. a certain duty was not accomplished). What matters is software production and negligence is the function of what is technically feasible, what is reasonable to demand or expect and the costs of achieving a certain level of reliability  thus it is usually not a small matter to identify if there are cases where a software producer has been negligent. Carelessness and software can be related to the Y2K problem and time and responsibility came into play. The factor of time is taken into consideration because at the time, the people who originally created the Computer had no idea how the computer was going to be used and how long it was going to be used at the time. Their calculations at the time were constrained with certain immediate parameters and immediate issues that seemed reasonable at the time. With this it would be difficult to assert that they were negligent on their responsibility as software producers.

The other section of the paper focuses on the Myth of Amoral Computer Programming and Informational Processing. This myth is the inclination to blame computers for issues that arise that result in the dismissal of the problem since computers are not in the position to bear any kind of moral responsibility or negligence  we cant blame computers for negligence thus the issue is shelved or closed. Computers then inadvertently diffuse responsibility by 1) the size and complication of computer system, 2) the sheer number of people involved in computer development, and lastly 3) the effect computer systems have in mediating human decision making.

This paper also tackles the legal liability. of an ISP according to recent court decisions. Based on current court decisions, the Policy called the Good Samaritan immunity for ISPs comes into play  ISPs shall not be held liable for information provided by another content provider that rides on ISPs.