Please allow me to revive this topic once more, since the issue of intellectual property is quite complicated and I feel that some important perspectives have not been discussed yet. Since my profession is software engineering, this issue affects me personally.
* Software piracy generally fulfills the criterion of "taking what is not given freely." Yet, some license restrictions in software products are also designed to "take what is not given freely", especially if these restrictions are coercive or unfairly leverage an existing market monopoly. Mp3 compression technology is a prime example. So, I wouldn't consider an open-source implementation of mp3 encode/decoder (such as "Lame") to break the second precept, for example. 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).
* 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? 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? 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? If a friend gives you a memory stick with MP3 songs, how is that different from exchanging records with friends the old-fashioned way?
* 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? I doubt that the argument can be called conclusive...