Copyright

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by Cittasanto »

just to note the first four precepts of the five precepts are worldly/society blameable precepts so if it is blameable by the world/society then it doesn't really matter if one doesn't feel ashamed or not, it is a breach of the precept.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Copyright

Post by mikenz66 »

Sure, I'm certainly not advocating that it's OK to rob or kill someone as long as you don't feel bad about it. And if something is clearly illegal it should be avoided.

I was talking exclusively about the grey areas, and in those cases I think that examining one's conscience is more useful than obsessing over legal technicalities. An approach which, in my experience, usually indicates that the obssessor knows something is wrong, but is trying to justify it anyway.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by Cittasanto »

mikenz66 wrote:Sure, I'm certainly not advocating that it's OK to rob or kill someone as long as you don't feel bad about it. And if something is clearly illegal it should be avoided.

I was talking exclusively about the grey areas, and in those cases I think that examining one's conscience is more useful than obsessing over legal technicalities. An approach which, in my experience, usually indicates that the obssessor knows something is wrong, but is trying to justify it anyway.

:anjali:
Mike
I didn't think you were suggesting that, but as this topic has come up again I felt it would be prudent to note the technical aspect for those not fully versed in the precepts.

but I did see a video (possibly here on DW) in the past few days about this, saying a copy is not theft as with theft it is something taken not able to be used again, whereas a copy does not remove the original item.
this is fair enough, but what about identity theft? someone is only copied so making use of the money of the original wouldn't really be theft as it would be them (ver2) using it? or how about two people wanting to have a fling she is married, so if he steals her husbands identity, would that now not be an affair, and thus sexual misconduct?
at the end of the day an identity is only intellectual property so carries no substance, just the same way all intelectual property can not be stolen...

and if anyone can not guess yes I am being facetious.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Copyright

Post by Alex123 »

Cittasanto wrote:just to note the first four precepts of the five precepts are worldly/society blameable precepts .
When soldier kills enemies, then he is a hero. In some worldly cases killing is considered to be good and legal. This doesn't correlate with dhamma where killing is always bad. So what is legal in society is not always good in Dhamma.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by Cittasanto »

Alex123 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:just to note the first four precepts of the five precepts are worldly/society blameable precepts .
When soldier kills enemies, then he is a hero. In some worldly cases killing is considered to be good and legal. This doesn't correlate with dhamma where killing is always bad. So what is legal in society is not always good in Dhamma.
You do know these are different rules and have no overlap, except for the area in which they are found blameable!
but you should be aware that it is the intention that is the deciding factor, and the intent to kill on a worldly level can have other nuances to it not covered or applicable to theft, which is always the objects removal without the owners consent being the deciding factor on a worldly level.
there are other reasons for taking something than theft, such as not knowing, but this doesn't necessarily effect it legally, but can Dhammicly.
the Buddha admitted that he could not think of a way to rule without imprisoning others, or having to send warriors out to war (reference not found sorry) when challenged by Mara, yet no such understanding of the duties a king has and those who serve under him has been shown for theft.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by Cittasanto »

here is a link to the video mentioned above
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-MFeR8 ... lf=mh_lolz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply