Probably the most controversial and topical issue in technology-related ethics today is the issue of peer-to-peer file sharing. Peer-to-peer file sharing technology poses many legal and ethical questions. Does sharing copies of legally purchased music CD's constitute theft? While the technology itself isn't to blame for the illegal distribution of copyrighted material, do the providers of such technologies have an ethical responsibility to ensure that their networks aren't enabling its distribution? Are they, in fact, aiding and abetting criminals when providing peer-to-peer networks? Are companies like Sony Electronics encouraging theft when they sell MP3 players?.
Probably the most famous case in the war against peer-to-peer technology was the lawsuit against Napster. Napster was a service that opened in 1999, the dawn of the Internet, really, and allowed users to share MP3's. In late 1999 eighteen record companies sued Napster for copyright infringement. Napster argued that sharing songs via it's service was fair use since people were using the songs for personal and not commercial use. Napster also argued that the company itself did not keep copies of MP3's on its servers, but only allowed other to share their MP3's. After more than a year in court Napster lost. Since the Napster case there are literally dozens of Napster clones that currently operate on the Internet. Like the Hydra of Greek mythology, if you take don't one service three more spring up in it's place. .
The controversy surrounding this issue continues. In September 3003 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced that it had filed the first wave of what could ultimately be thousands of civil lawsuits against people who have been illegally distributing copyrighted music on peer- to-peer networks. In one case they chose to sue a twelve-year old girl. Additionally, the RIAA has recently announced a plan to offer "amnesty" to file-sharers who sign admissions of guilt.
