2nd precept in a digital world / internet

[metta_noob]

Pre-internet scenario 1
An artist sets up stall in Montmarte. He puts up his finished works/canvases on display hoping people would like them and buy them. Mr A comes along and takes a photo of the scene, with the finished works occupying a prominent portion of the photo. Mr A then goes to the photo lab and enlarges the photo, and displays the printed photo for sale.

Pre-internet scenario 2
Same as in Scenario 1. But this time Mr A crops the photo so that only the artist's finished work is left. Mr B also touches up parts of the artist's artwork and removes the artist's signature and puts in his own signature. He displays the the resulting photo for sale.

Internet scenario 3
Mr Photog takes a color photo of a beautiful landscape, watermarks it and uploads it to his website. Mr C comes across the photo, decides he likes it, right clicks and saves it to his hard disk for offline viewing.

Internet scenario 4
Same as scenario 3. Except Mr D not only saves it to his hard disk but removes Mr Photog's watermark and uploads it to Mr D's website.

Internet scenario 5
Same as scenario 3. Now Mr E goes one up on Mr D. Mr E uses his Photoshop skills and spends time to convert the color photo to a nicely toned "fine art" black and white. Of course, he also uses his Photoshop skills to remove the watermark and slaps on his own watermark before posting it to Mr E's website.

Who has broken the 2nd precept? Mr A, B, C, D or E?

PS: my understanding of the 2nd precept is quite simply not to take anything that is not given to you. I may be mistaken

Thanks

[Fede]

I think the discussion is complex - have you seen this thread?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 94#p119194" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chownah]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

[acinteyyo]

I second that

[andre9999]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

Nonsense.

1. Chownah creates something.
2. Andre makes a copy.
3. We both go to the same market and set-up a booth next to each other, then set a price according to how much work we put into it. Yours costs $50. Mine costs $10.

Which will people buy? Chownah gets screwed in this deal, but hey, I guess IP doesn't exist.

[metta_noob]

I think the discussion is complex - have you seen this thread?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 94#p119194" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thank you for the link. i've now read it. very interesting how the issue can be made so complex ... LOL and i thought buddhism was all about simplifying, reducing, and shedding

I like your response there. The title of the thread was - Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

And you said to the point -

All I know is, that if I want to download something and know it's illegal, I feel very uncomfortable doing it.
That's within myself, to myself.
I think personally, it depends on whether the person themselves feels they are compromising their own principles.
I feel that way. so I don't do it.

[metta_noob]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

Interesting. I didn't realise the possibility of the right speech precept. Thanks for pointing that out.

But what if it was not their intent to "mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it" but to show that they spent hours editing and changing the original piece? eg Mr E in scenario #5, who does it because he believes that he has given birth to a new work?

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

I'm not too sure about how IP came to be but let's talk about it.

I take it that you're saying ... because "intellectual property does not exist" therefore "None of them took anything from anyone."

You also said that "it is a bogus idea created by big business" How about the one-man-show Montmartre artist who depends on his artwork for a living? He is not a "big business" ... is he also bound by your idea about IP? ... is IP also a bogus idea for the small guy?

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your views on IP ... you're perfectly entitled to what you believe. But if I were to hold the similar view that IP is a bogus idea, I would merely not buy the item. I wouldn't use that to justify taking it without paying and without asking. Then again who am I to impose my realities on anyone LOL

[chownah]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

Interesting. I didn't realise the possibility of the right speech precept. Thanks for pointing that out.

But what if it was not their intent to "mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it" but to show that they spent hours editing and changing the original piece? eg Mr E in scenario #5, who does it because he believes that he has given birth to a new work?

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

I'm not too sure about how IP came to be but let's talk about it.

I take it that you're saying ... because "intellectual property does not exist" therefore "None of them took anything from anyone."

You also said that "it is a bogus idea created by big business" How about the one-man-show Montmartre artist who depends on his artwork for a living? He is not a "big business" ... is he also bound by your idea about IP? ... is IP also a bogus idea for the small guy?

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your views on IP ... you're perfectly entitled to what you believe. But if I were to hold the similar view that IP is a bogus idea, I would merely not buy the item. I wouldn't use that to justify taking it without paying and without asking. Then again who am I to impose my realities on anyone LOL

Small time artists are not big businesses but if they think they have created some kind of "intellectual property" by creating an art work then they have been deluded by a concept that was created by big business for the purpose of increasing their profits and not the profits of the artist. If you paint an oil painting then that one painting is what you've got....if someone takes a picture of it then the maker of the oil painting has no claim to the picture...if the oil painter doesn't want someone to take a picture of their work then they should be careful about where they display their work....I am fully aware that alot of artists who make money because of the societal delusion of "intellectual property" would make alot less money....oh well....I guess being an artist shouldn't be so profitable....I don't care....great art will always be produced by great artists and the money which accumulates from the delusion of "intellectual property" has nothing to do with it...absolutely nothing...zip...nada.
chownah

[chownah]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

Nonsense.

1. Chownah creates something.
2. Andre makes a copy.
3. We both go to the same market and set-up a booth next to each other, then set a price according to how much work we put into it. Yours costs $50. Mine costs $10.

Which will people buy? Chownah gets screwed in this deal, but hey, I guess IP doesn't exist.

Fact is that along time ago I created a kinetic sculpture which in its functioning produced a sellable article which I sold and supported myself....I displayed the sculpture in a public place with an open invitation for all to come and see...and to buy what it produced if they liked....the design of the sculpture was to make all of its workings visible and obvious to whoever observed it functioning....(the old form/function idea taken to its most visible height)...one day a young woman came and stood for about a half an hour watching intently....she then came to me and said..."you know, I know EXACTLY how it works"...I smiled and nodded my head and added "yup"...."and"...she continued..."I could go home and make my own and compete with you"....to which I smiled and added, "be my guest".

I don't need no stinking "intellectual property" (no badges either!).....
chownah

[nameless]

None of them. None of them took anything from anyone. The only precept I see broken is right speech if they put their name on an image to take credit for something they didn't create....you may say that they did create the actual thing with their name on it (file, picture, whatever form you see their name on) which is true but if the intent is to mislead people about the origins of the thing with their name on it then it is not right speech (even though no speech has been produced) in my opinion.
chownah

intellectual property does not exist....it is a bogus idea created by big business to hamstring the masses and force them to buy the mass produced mass production items....
chownah

Nonsense.

1. Chownah creates something.
2. Andre makes a copy.
3. We both go to the same market and set-up a booth next to each other, then set a price according to how much work we put into it. Yours costs $50. Mine costs $10.

Which will people buy? Chownah gets screwed in this deal, but hey, I guess IP doesn't exist.

It seems that Chownah is getting screwed, but by how much?
There's a number of people who will seek and buy the "original" regardless of whether or not there's a pirated version. There's a whole industry of branded stuff where people want the expensive thing so that they can show off their wealth.

There's a number of people who can't afford the expensive thing. Arguments against piracy often assume that people who bought the pirated version would have bought the original if pirated copies didn't exist, which is a mistaken view. People who can't afford it would simply find something else to do. If I couldn't watch a movie of the net I would just go do something else, wait for someone to buy the DVD and borrow it, wait for it to come on TV etc.

So after you take away those people who would buy the original no matter what, and who wouldn't buy the original no matter what, piracy only affects sales for those in the middle, those who would buy the original but would choose a pirated copy if available.

Another thing is that in some industries IP is complicated. For example the IPhone game Angry Birds: the idea of shooting something to knock down some others things isn't original, but they added their own touches to the genre. Should someone be able to patent "shooting something to knock down things"? If they did we wouldn't have Angry Birds. Angry Birds added their own touches and the new game therefore "belongs" to them. If Andre copied Chownah's work and added some of his own touches, would you then recognize that the new thing "belongs" to him? This message board is based on programming that someone wrote, should the person have patented it so that we would then have to pay to use such a board because it's his "property"? If someone gets an idea from something that I have written then goes on to write a book about it and earns millions of dollars, do I get a share? Should I?

And I suppose, from a Buddhist point of view, who owns the property and how does one own it?