chownah wrote: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.
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....
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?