1. Right
1.1. You enter a marathon race and come in third place. You win a nice trophy and your friend snaps a photo of you holding the trophy. The friend then posts the photo online with a caption saying you won the race. The photo is popular and is reposted and re-tweeted often. This photo becomes the number one searched link for the race and it declares that you are the winner.
1.1.1. Haha. I am going with right on this one. From a personal stand point I can not see any fault with anything about this statement. By simply declaring that this man with his "third place" trophy is the winner, I see nothing wrong with that. For one thing, he is. He finished the race, and while some may say the winner is the guy who finished first, to me that is just not the case. Especially in a marathon, most marathons anyone who competes, let alone finishes is a winner. Not to make this some deep seeded moral conflict, but if his goal was to finish the race, whether he come in tenth or dead last, and he finished first, does that not make him the winner? Anyway, i suppose the concept of the project is more literal and digital. Leaning more towards digital ethics, or etiquette by having the web users assume, by winner, they mean first place. Therefore stating in some way the marathon runner or as an extension the friend who tweeted the photo in the first place, should reconcile the confusion and explain that while he may have been the winner he did not win first place. However, I put this in right for a reason, and will finish this statement by saying that the only fault lies within those who assume winner means first place and are to closed minded to see that anyone who accomplishes their goals, or even those who set out to achieve them are still winners.
2. Could be different for each person
3. Doesn't bother me
3.1. Denise is in the process of applying for a job at Company X. Meanwhile, she sees a Twitter post about her favorite movie by someone (that she doesn’t know) whose tagline says he works for “Company X.” She decides to contact this person through his Twitter handle to ask him about the job or the company.
3.1.1. I choose "doesn't bother me" because it doesn't. This one was probably the hardest one for me, because it is a rather grey scenario. In my honest opinion, I can't feel like Denise is in the wrong, because companies have in the past and still continue to, use Facebook and other social medias to judge a persons character. So why not be able to contact someone though theirs in an attempt to get better insight into the company you are about to work for.
4. Wrong
4.1. Anna is hired to work in a music studio and one day she finds a digital document on the company computer that contains the names, cellphone numbers, and email addresses of quite a few famous musicians and producers that the studio owner has compiled. She decides to copy this information down to use for her own networking purposes.
4.1.1. This is not only an invasion of the companies network as well as documents that I can only assume Anna should be handling with client confidentiality. This is also an invasion of privacy I mean she is acquiring sensitive personal information about people. I feel like this one is pretty obvious. Possibly even illegal.
4.2. A student has been on a family trip and realizes that his assignment is due in one day. The student logs into the Full Sail library research databases and copies/pastes information without giving proper credit to the authors of the materials.
4.2.1. This one is pretty straight forward. Even though those documents are there for use to utilize. They are not our own work, they must be cited properly or they are null and void. This would be considered plagiarism no matter how you swing it. Not to mention the fact that, even if he were to have a whole page of random cites, and managed to put together a page that cited his work properly. There was no effort put into it, he had one day to work on it, less than that even, and that will show in his work.
4.3. You work for a club. The owner approaches you about your knowledge of Photoshop and wants you to edit some of the pictures of the club that are on the club’s website. He wants you to add in equipment they don't have and famous artists who have not played there, and to add people to the crowd shots to make it look more crowded.
4.3.1. This one is a tad bit sketchy. For one thing, i can only imagine that some club out there has done this. Not even just some club, but any business, whether it be retail, construction, or even entertainment. Photoshop is everywhere, and while some people may use it in a way that is proper. This example is not one of those. It is an obvious assumption that this club will use these pictures as advertising for their club. Photoshopping a famous artist who has never been there, is definitely wrong, and illegal, adding equipment they don;t have is wrong, but might not necassarily be illegal. Adding more patrons to make it look busier, can not be a good thing in any situation. There is no way to add more faces to a crowd that isn't wrong. Regardless of any of the little details, tinkering with a photo to make yourself look better and then profiting off of it, is false advertisement and that is illegal. I am going to stick with wrong with this one, even though it might cost me my job, there have been worse things I've been fired for telling my employers i don't want to do. haha. #cleaningabathroom
4.4. Susan’s favorite musician released a new album. Susan is struggling financially, but really wants to hear the new album. She finds someone that has the album already and makes herself a copy.
4.4.1. What, she couldn't just borrow it from her friend and listen to it, get her Beiber fix until she can afford to go out and buy the copy herself. Seriously though, other than the obvious copyright infringement that goes along with any copying of any work that isn't your own. There is that ominous warning before every movie, and that sticker on the back of CD's that specifically says the copying and use of this work is prohibited by FEDERAL LAW. Thats no joke, that is a federal law, that's jail time. Now while you can use pirate bay or lime wire and steal all the copyrighted entertainment you want. Never the less, it doesn't make it right. Besides, if it is your favorite artist, wouldn't you feel better if they got the proper blessing for their creation, their art.
5. Not comfortable with this
5.1. Working on a research paper, Jason goes to the library to do some further investigating on his topic. He finds a computer that has been left open by a student who is working on the same subject matter. He doesn’t see any of the other student’s content but he sees that the document was left open on the references page. The only other person in the area is a librarian on the other side of the room behind the computer and Jason decides to copy the other student’s reference pages for his own.
5.1.1. It's possible that Jason may just be using these references to help in researching his own paper. The problem is he is using someone else's handwork and effort. Somebody else went along and researched and put all that extra work into finding his own resources and Jason just used his work. I don't feel like its plagiarism unless of course Jason uses the exact format and page set up that the other user did, but not using your own work, and not doing your own research is wrong, and that's where I believe Jason has made a mistake.