"Before patent laws existed, inventors were reluctant to share their secrets. Thus their inventions, which would have made life easier for the masses, were restricted to themselves.

The original aim in the patent mechanism was established to encourage mass production of inventors’ creations to bring benefits to the wider population. Patent alone is not an act of selfishness, but rather a genuine claim to one’s years of efforts and ingenuity. But what began as an ideal – that is for the benefit of the masses – can be exploited (and has shown to be) by the stronger parties who wield great influence over lawmakers.

The issue of piracy is not whether it is legal, but whether it follows the ‘fair pricing’ rule for both the masses and the innovators. It is impossible to have one price for the whole world because not everyone is endowed with equal resources. Thus, a Christian in North America has a wider range of options compared with a Christian in Malaysia.

Take India, for example. Manufacturers in general recognise the low-income level of the masses and their ability (or rather, inability) to afford their wares, so the prices are adjusted to match the consumers’ affordability to own the goods. By factor-ing ‘affordability’ to their pricing, they have

followed the ‘fair pricing’ principle, and shown regard for the people. That means the prices are fair to both the consumers and manufacturers and inventors, and this gives the consumers little reason to indulge in piracy or veer into extra-legal territories. Why not extend this practice to all other countries?

By and large, this ‘fair pricing’ rule has generally been ignored, largely because of self-interest. For example, in England, the book industry has a quite a stake in exports, so the people there are edgy about photocopying books. They know it works against the interest of their economy. But they are unperturbed by software piracy because they don’t control that sector, whereas in America, which controls the world software market, piracy is strictly frowned upon by the masses. I note the difference in attitude to highlight the fair pricing mechanism.

Secondly, distinction should be made between copying products for the purpose of education (information and technology) and for entertainment.

For example, photocopying books is not an issue if they’re for personal academic use, especially if the ‘offender’ is genuinely financially wanting. But companies and institutions should not indulge in extra-legal means of procuring their materials unless they are out of print.

For software, consumers have a moral claim if it is copied for education purpose. The line is blurred when we come to copying software for entertainment (songs, movies and games) because it is not essential. Here, it is difficult to claim the high moral ground but because of the lack of moral integrity of manufacturers, and the consumers’ lack of confidence in them, what was a legitimate demand to access to knowledge has now spread to entertainment. Copying software and purchasing pirated VCDs has become rampant, even for the local Christian community.

This is a symptom of the breakdown of integrity for both consumers and manufacturers. It falls short of the moral ideal, but I can emphatise with the necessity of life that have caused us to fall prey to this.

Finally, a word of caution: Those who claim to be poor have to guard against the moral presumption that they are exempt from licensing laws. They have to beware of the moral hazard of compromising, which may lead to a hardening of the heart. Never abandon the moral struggle when trying to make moral decisions. On the other hand, just because innovators and manufacturers can influence lawmakers, they cannot claim the high moral ground."