The following Wall Street Journal article reports on a Federal Appeals Court ruling involving a dispute between BV Engineering and UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles). After reading the article, answer the questions given below.

Court Ruling Allows States to Reproduce

Copyright Material Without Liability

By Richard B. Schmitt

Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO-A federal appeals court, dealing a blow to authors, musicians and other creative people, held that state governments, including universities, can reproduce copyrighted works without permission and avoid liability for money damages.

The decision stemmed from a 1996 law suite by BV Engineering Professional Software, a closely held, Riverside, Calif., company, that challenged the unauthorized copying of its software programs and other materials by physics professors at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Injunction Still Allowed

While barring money damages, the court's decision still allows plaintiffs to obtain injunctions to halt massive copying of documents or other works. Allen Wagner, a lawyer for UCLA, said such an alternative is "appropriate and fair redress."

But lawyers for BV said the approach leaves the initial damage done. "It gives a state one free shot to copy copyrighted material," said Leo Cunningham, a lawyer with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, Calif., who helped to represent the software company.

Mr. Cunningham, who said the court's opinion would have "far-reaching effects" said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is planned.

The university's position had garnered the support of educational groups, which argued that copying for limited purposes should be protected because it has broad public benefits.

BV Engineering had sold the UCLA professors single copies of seven different computer programs and their respective user manuals. The university then made several additional copies on its own. UCLA officials characterized the additional copying as an innocent attempt to evaluate the programs for further educational purposes. BV claimed the copying amounted to illegal pirating, tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a license agreement with the university, and then sued the school.

Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in this case?

Briefly describe the nature of the dispute between BV and UCLA.

How might the economic theory of “public goods” be applied to explain the cause and the nature of the dispute described in the article?

Use economic and legal reasoning to explain how you would rule in this case. If you agree with the Federal Appeals Court ruling explain why. If you disagree with the Federal Appeals Court ruling, explain why not.

Choose at least two ethical norms from the following list and explain how they might apply to your ruling in the case. In your response, you may describe how each ethical norm is either in support or in conflict with your ruling.

Freedom

Security

Justice

Efficiency