BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Pārājika Chapter 4Infringement of copyright. The international standards for copyright advocated byUNESCO state that infringement of copyright is tantamount to theft. However, inpractice, an accusation of copyright infringement is judged not as a case of theftbut as one of "fair use," the issue being the extent to which a person in possessionof an item may fairly copy that item for his/her own use or to give or sell to anotherperson without compensating the copyright owner. Thus even a case of "unfair use"would not fulfill the factors of effort and object under this rule, in that — in creatinga copy — one is not taking possession of an item that does not belong to one, andone is not depriving the owners of something already theirs. At most, the copyrightowners might claim that they are being deprived of compensation owed to them,but as we have argued above, the principle of compensation owed does not rightlybelong under this rule. In the terminology of the Canon, a case of unfair use wouldfall under either of two categories — acting for the non-gain of the copyrightowners or wrong livelihood — categories that entail a dukkaṭa under the general ruleagainst misbehavior (Cv.V.36). They would also make one eligible for a disciplinarytransaction, such as reconciliation or banishment (see BMC2, Chapter 20), whichthe Community could impose if it saw the infringement as serious enough to meritsuch a punishment.Copying computer software. The agreement made when installing software on acomputer, by which one agrees not to give the software to anyone else, comesunder contract law. As such, a breach of that contract would be treated under thecategory of "deceit," described above, which means that a bhikkhu who givessoftware to a friend in defiance of this contract would incur the penalty for a brokenpromise. As for the friend — assuming that he is a bhikkhu — the act of receivingthe software and putting it on his computer would be treated under the precedent,mentioned above, of the bhikkhus receiving fruit from an orchard groundkeeper notauthorized to give it away: He would incur no offense. However, as he must agreeto the contract before installing the software on his computer, he would incur apenalty for a broken promise if he then gave the software to someone else indefiance of the contract.Credit cards. The theft of a credit card would of course be an offense. Because theowner of the card, in most cases, would not be required to pay for the stolen card,the seriousness of a theft of this sort would be determined by how the thief usedthe card. NP 20 would forbid a bhikkhu from using a credit card to buy anythingeven if the card were his to use, although a bhikkhu who had gone to the extent ofstealing a card would probably not be dissuaded by that rule from using it or havingsomeone else use it for him. In any event, the use of the card would be equivalentto using a stolen key to open a safe. If the thief hands the credit card to a storeclerk to make a purchase, that would count as a gesture telling the clerk to transferfunds from the account of the credit card company. Because such operations areautomated, the clerk's attempt to have the funds transferred would count not as anact of deceit but an act of taking. If the credit card company's machines authorizethe transaction, then the theft occurs as soon as funds are transferred from oneaccount to another. The seriousness of the theft would be calculated in line with theprinciple of the "prior plan" mentioned above.45