percept nb. 2 and copyright

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Wind
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: percept nb. 2 and copyright

Post by Wind »

There should be a limit to copyright laws. For example, in the movie Food Inc. There is a company that genetically alter soybeans that can withstand certain chemicals. They patented this crop. And any farmers who wants to grow the crop would have to pay them. Now, if they succeed to eliminate all naturally growing soy crops from the world, their crop being the only viable option. Anyone who grows soy even for personal use would be violating copyright laws. I think it's wrong to claim "intellectual" property when clearly some things in life belongs to no one.
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: percept nb. 2 and copyright

Post by Pannapetar »

How about everyone concerned about piracy just legally purchase the product of their choice? It is not that hard. - In case of home computers and standard off-the-shelf software that would be wasteful. Save your money (or better donate it) and use Linux. With few exceptions, open-source standard software (the type of software used on an average home computer) is equivalent or superior. Plus you completely avoid the issue of stealing and support products based on generosity.

The television paid for the rights to show it. - What about online providers? Reputable online providers have to do the same.

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... - Well, things were a lot easier back in the Buddha's days, weren't they? How do you determine, for example, if a given video on Youtube is there legitimately or illegitimately? The Buddha also taught that kamma depends on intention.

Making a copy of your legally purchased product for your personal use is not the same as pirating a copy. - What about taping music and shows from the radio or TV for personal use? That's what we did back in the 80s. How is that different from, say, recording streamed media, or copying media?

Sheesh - you are arguing that legally purchasing something is worse than stealing? - No, that is not at all what I argue. I refuted PT1's last paragraph, who said that because the desire to take possession of something is rooted in greed, it must be wrong. I don't think this argument has a sound premise, or that it can be applied to what is being discussed here.

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?

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
Wind
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: percept nb. 2 and copyright

Post by Wind »

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?

Cheers, Thomas
Some companies esp the software industry is trying to make this so. If they get their way and the government passes more laws that limits sharing. It would shape people's minds in thinking they did something wrong even though back in the past it would not even cross their minds. I think we have to be aware how our minds are being shape by man-made problems that really does not exist. This whole idea of intellectual properties is not black and white. I bet the Buddha could give a clear analogy that sheds some light into the issue. And ultimately, we don't own anything, there is no I, me, myself, or mine. And when we start claiming things to be ours, it will create dukkha.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: percept nb. 2 and copyright

Post by Kim OHara »

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?
No, no and no, because when you buy the book (as a physical object - I'm not going to confuse the issue by considering e-books, etc) you buy the right to do whatever you like with it, except for copying it.
There is a clear parallel with buying a brick or a necklace or a cabbage: all the rights of ownership pass to the purchaser. The only difference is that it is feasible to copy the important part of a book - its meaning - without either destroying the original or paying for that important part, and that is why the publisher withholds the right to make copies.
Piracy of publications is not exclusively a modern invention, by any means. It has been around for 300 years to my certain knowledge, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the world's first pirated edition appeared shortly after Gutenberg's first publication.

Myself, I keep going back to first principles, and (usually) avoid taking what is not freely given. I try to treat the creators as I would like to be treated in the same position.
I have to put the (usually) there because (1) some creators are, frankly, unreasonable and/or unethical, and/or (2) the benefit to the community of breaking the rule is greater than the (karmic) benefit of keeping it.

:namaste:
Kim
Post Reply