A friend of mine (IT specialist) said that Bill Gates stated that he doesn't mind home users to use pirated microsoft products, so it is ok to use them at home.
Ben wrote:Why would it be any different?
one significant difference is that in the Buddha's day it would have been impossible to "take that which is not given" without depriving the original owner of that very item.
retrofuturist wrote:I don't want to rehash old discussions, but I do know (from speaking to some of them) that some musicians don't mind their music being copied for others (though they often can't come out and say it in case the record company's legal team gets wind of it) because it gives them exposure and increases the likelihood of selling concert tickets, t-shirts and other paraphernalia, and it introduces their music to people who would not otherwise heard of them and therefore also increases the chances of such people buying their music legally in the future.
pt1 wrote:I don't see where is the ambiguity here.
retrofuturist wrote:I don't think there's any ambiguity over the interpretation of the precept as it was laid down by the Buddha. As I said, "I wonder how the Buddha would have formulated this precept had he lived in the age of copyright? Would it be the same, would it be different?"
We know that he added Vinaya rules as the need arose, rather than doing them all instantaneously, so if the Buddha had come up against copyright law, notions of intellectual property and such, would he have worded this precept in the same way?
Pannapetar wrote:*Everyone who is concerned about software piracy and licensing issues should evaluate Linux and open-source software. I am myself a contributor (...in a humble way).
How about everyone concerned about piracy just legally purchase the product of their choice? It is not that hard.
* Copying media is even more complicated, as it depends on use. Downloading movies and music might violate the second precept, or it might not. For example, if you watch a movie on the Internet, how is that different from watching it on TV?
The television paid for the rights to show it.
If you listen to Internet radio, how is that different from listening to radio?
In case the website where you retrieve media from is breaching copyright laws, can you always discern it? Is it reasonable to expect users to discern it?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse - the Buddha went so far to state that the ignorant breaker of precepts is worse than than the intentional breaker... If you don't want pirated, bootlegged, stolen or illegal stuff - know your source.
Furthermore, if you download a digital copy of a song/movie for personal use, how is that different from recording it for personal use with a tape recorder?
Making a copy of your legally purchased product for your personal use is not the same as pirating a copy. If you purchase a legal download - it is a legal download. An illegal download is illegal. Stealing is stealing. Using a tape recorder to record a copy of a product you did not legally buy is stealing. Nowhere does the copyright say "except if you use a tape recorder, then stealing is legal"? Lots of DAT recorders had copy protection built in - for the first time the ability to copy was soooo good they were really scared.
If a friend gives you a memory stick with MP3 songs, how is that different from exchanging records with friends the old-fashioned way?
Vinyl records were single copies legally purchased. If the memory stick has only legally purchased songs and not copies of legally purchased songs - the only difference is the media.
* Is downloading (=taking) media necessarily rooted in greed? - I doubt this can be stated with general validity. - For example, you could download something out of mere curiosity to evaluate it, or you could download it for someone else, for example cartoons for your kids, or you could download it for educational purposes and for a million other reasons. Besides, if downloading nonphysical media is "greedy" then what about buying physical media? Doesn't the willingness to spend cash for such an item express an even greater desire (=greed) to possess it?
Sheesh - you are arguing that legally purchasing something is worse than stealing? - is the Buddha rolling over in his grave or what? (rhetorical question)
I doubt that the argument can be called conclusive...
I doubt that the logic used can be either...
Here is another example, just food for thought: you buy a book and after reading it yourself, you lend (or give it away) to a friend. Does that violate copyrights? Is that stealing from the author/publisher? Is this taking what's not given?
Pannapetar wrote:Here is another example, just food for thought: you buy a book and after reading it yourself, you lend (or give it away) to a friend. Does that violate copyrights? Is that stealing from the author/publisher? Is this taking what's not given?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests