I thought really deeply about this issue, maybe way more than I should have.
If we say someone else owns a picture or a movie or a song, it does not matter if you change the brightness, play it backwards, or play it using a different instrument, so what they are actually owning is the abstract idea of that picture, movie or song. So, the first question I thought about is: Is physical property really the same as intellectual property? Or in other words: can someone really own an idea the same way someone can own a spoon, a house, a piece of land? At first I though this notion is actually ridiculous. But I then I realized that all property is intellectual property. If you own something there is really no natural law that says: this is yours. The written and unwritten rules of our society determine what is yours and what is mine. If these rules say that you can own an idea, than that is no more or less ridiculous than owning a spoon or a piece of land .
The second question I thought about is: Even if someone can own an idea, you are not really taking it away from them, are you? But the answer is you are taking something else: their right to be the only one to copy or reproduce that idea. This is what they were owning in the first place: a right - the copyright. So is it against the second precept to take away a right ? I think we can reasonably conclude that it is. For example if you are stealing money, you are also not stealing the paper, but really the right to exchange that paper for goods and services. So you if put a picture on the internet without permission, you are depriving the copyright owner of their right to be the only one to makes copies of that pictures, which would be against the second precept.
The final question I thought about is this: In the typical case we are not actually taking something something from a person, but from a big multinational cooperation, is this really the same for the sake of this precept? I think it is. This cooperation has shareholders who are humans, you are taking something from them: the right to own a part of the company that owns the right to be the only one to copy an idea.
So, what about the case were it is actually legal to download that copyrighted work? Contrary to what has been said before, I would say that would be the same as taking something that you known is stolen, but not the same as stealing yourself in my interpretation of this precept.
So, at this point are probably wondering what I am trying to say with this post. I am not sure myself, but I think it is that these things have become so complicated, abstract and ridiculous, that it is really impossible to give a sensible answer anymore.
 I also thought, that maybe the intended meaning of the second precept was not to make us observe the rules of our society with respect to property, but to respect the emotions of another person when we take something away from them. But then stealing would be okay if the owner did not notice, I think that can not be what the Buddha meant.
 Strictly speaking if I look at the Pali translation for taking here is might not be true, because you don’t have that right afterwards.
May you all become enlightened.