1. When Zynga dropped Petville abruptly, virtual pet owners protested that they had been harmed. This ethical argument uses a utilitarian framework. How might you argue from a natural laws and rights ethical framework that Zynga was wrong?

2. The suddenness of Zynga’s action created a firestorm of customer discontent. What are other ways that Zynga might have handled the discontinuance of a failing game without creating such protest?

3. How is the ownership of digital information determined? Is it ethically wrong to deny people access to owned information if that denial causes harm?

4. When virtual pet owners invested emotionally and financially in ‘their’ pets, should they have been considered at least partial owners of the digital information? Why or why not?