IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/mancon/v13y2019i1p1179-1184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Ethical Framework For Digital Afterlife Industries

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina VOINEA
  • Radu USZKAI

Abstract

The following article is an exploratory one, aiming at providing a point of departure for building an ethical framework for digital afterlife industries. We begin with a short description of what the digital afterlife industries are. We then move on to a taxonomy of such companies, distinguishing between: (a) digital inheritance management companies; (b) companies that manage messaging services; (c) online memorial services and (d) re-creation services. Our argument is that an ethical framework for digital afterlife industries should take into account two main variables: (i) respect for the departed and (ii) the mediation of the relation between the departed and the living. The paper ends with a critical evaluation of a potential anti-commodification objection to digital afterlife industries. Keywords: digital afterlife, digital rights, digital wills, privacy, digital death.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina VOINEA & Radu USZKAI, 2019. "An Ethical Framework For Digital Afterlife Industries," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(1), pages 1179-1184, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:1179-1184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://conference.management.ase.ro/archives/2019/pdf/5_20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imanol Arrieta-Ibarra & Leonard Goff & Diego Jiménez-Hernández & Jaron Lanier & E. Glen Weyl, 2018. "Should We Treat Data as Labor? Moving beyond "Free"," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 38-42, May.
    2. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Falck & Johannes Koenen, 2020. "Rohstoff „Daten“: Volkswirtschaflicher Nutzen von Datenbereitstellung – eine Bestandsaufnahme," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 113, October.
    2. Ian Loader & Adam White, 2017. "How can we better align private security with the public interest? Towards a civilizing model of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 166-184, June.
    3. Kuerbis, Brenden & Mueller, Milton, 2023. "Exploring the role of data enclosure in the digital political economy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8).
    4. Kader, Haithem, 2021. "Human well-being, morality and the economy: an Islamic perspective," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 28, pages 102-123.
    5. Joshua S. Gans, 2022. "The Specialness of Zero," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 157-176.
    6. Casella, Alessandra & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Democracy undone. Systematic minority advantage in competitive vote markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 47-70.
    7. Huesmann, Katharina & Wambach, Achim, 2020. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224636, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Alshamy, Yahya & Coyne, Christopher J. & Goodman, Nathan, 2023. "Noxious government markets: Evidence from the international arms trade," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 87-99.
    10. Gregory J. Robson, 2023. "How to Object to the Profit System (and How Not To)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 205-219, November.
    11. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti & Tan Gan, 2022. "The economics of social data," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(2), pages 263-296, June.
    12. Della Giusta, Marina & Di Tommaso, Maria Laura & Jewell, Sarah & Bettio, Francesca, 2019. "Quashing Demand Criminalizing Clients? Evidence from the UK," IZA Discussion Papers 12405, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Shota Ichihashi, 2021. "Competing data intermediaries," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 515-537, September.
    14. Bjorn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Yagiz ozdemir, 2023. "Does Market Interaction Erode Moral Values?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 226-235, January.
    15. Della Giusta, Marina & Di Tommaso, Maria Laura & Bettio, Francesca & Jewell, Sarah, 2018. "Criminalising clients: some evidence from the UK," MPRA Paper 91480, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ewelina Badura, 2019. "Taxation Aspects of International E-Commerce," MIC 2019: Managing Geostrategic Issues; Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Opatija, Croatia, 29 May–1 June 2019,, University of Primorska Press.
    17. Nasreen Nawaz, 2021. "Efficiency on the dynamic adjustment path in a financial market," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 45(1), pages 49-74, January.
    18. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    19. Shota Ichihashi, 2020. "Non-competing Data Intermediaries," Staff Working Papers 20-28, Bank of Canada.
    20. Francesca Bettio & Marina Della Giusta & Maria Laura Di Tommaso & Sarah Jewell, 2016. "Stigmatising Prostitution: Some Evidence from the UK," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-13, Department of Economics, University of Reading.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:1179-1184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ciocoiu Nadia Carmen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mnasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.