Making an assessment of the first article from a deontological perspective, one can not say that Napster’s operation is not ethical. From the information that was provided, Napster was not the directly involved in copyright infringement but what made them liable was the fact that they provided the platform for users to infringe on copyright laws. There was nothing in Napster’s action that suggested that they consciously supported its users to infringe on the copyright laws. On the other hand, it is the consequence of their provision of a free music-swapping service which was used to violate copyright laws that was unacceptable. Therefore, the legal violation and moral wrongness of Napster is counted on the consequence that their free music-swapping service brings.
Furthermore, in the second article, although there was a copyright violation on the work of Harlan Ellison, the person that was liable was Stephen Robertson. Although the case has some resemblance to the Napster’s case but in the case of AOL, we can say that the “company was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” (OUT-LAW News, 2002) and this serves as a negative right for them. The act excluded them from liabilities from any controversial material posted on its server if they remove it when notified of such material.
Finally, the third article was a case of a company operating under the loophole of the copyright law in Russia. Under the Russian Copyright law, there was no inclusion of digital file laws and so the operation of ALLOFMP3.com might be unethical but not illegal. Under the Article 44 of the Russian Copyright Law, ALLOFMP3.com derives its operational rights and Under Article 45(3), they have the right to use all works of art which includes the works of those that does not give the holder of the license permission to use their works. ALLOFMP3.com might have done something that is immoral and unethical but we can say that the law is silent on what they did and so we have no right to say that what they did is actually illegal.