Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

[mikenz66]

I don't think it makes sense to apply deep teachings of the aggregates to the precepts. The precepts have to do with dealing with the mundane world in a non-combative and non-destructive way, to give us the basic calm necessary for further development. Looking at the precepts in that way, anything that you might feel guilty about is best avoided.


Mike

[danieLion]

What makes something mine?
Locke (Second Treatise on Government) said what makes it yours is mixing your labor with it. But that can't be all the whole story.

When you're eating, is the food on the plate yours? If you ask your hunger, it'll tell you "yes"; if you ask a hungry thief sitting across from you, he'd likely disagree. There, some of the choices are to defend "your" food or share. The thief's not likely to point out your clinging (via hunger for physical nutriment) as stingy defilement but simply take it by force or cunning. But when is the food yours? On your plate? On your fork? In your mouth? In your gut? Right before your deposit it in the toilet? And if we can't pin down ownership with physical food, how much less can we say about intellectual "things"?

For the one having/possessing the lessons are generosity and letting go. PTS, BPS, Wisdom, & Bhikkhu Bodhi pass this "test" IMO (see http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p192073" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; & http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p192106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

For the one lacking/not possessing the lesson is craving. This is hard for egalitarians, but alas, the Buddha taught that even EQUALITY is wrong view.

For both, the lesson is to stand up to defilement in one's heart and the world BUT to be guided by wise compassion in knowing when, where and how to do it or refrain from doing it skillfully. In my experience (and I think the Buddha would've concurred) standing up to the former not only takes precedence over the latter but when you look within before looking without you'll inevitably see the true nature of "mine" in a way that also helps you see the benefits of generosity.

'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled. 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled. Hostilities aren't stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth. Unlike those who don't realize that we're here on the verge of perishing, those who do: their quarrels are stilled.

-Yamakavagga 3-6
metta

[mikenz66]

And the relevance of all that to the precepts is what?


Mike

[danieLion]

And the relevance of all that to the precepts is what?


Mike

It's not addressed to the relevance of the precepts. It's addressed specifically to the OP.

Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept? One monk I asked said yes, and wouldn't even take offered software if it wasn't legitimate. Another said it was a type of sharing and did not break the precept. What do you folks think?

metta

[danieLion]

I don't think it makes sense to apply deep teachings of the aggregates to the precepts.

There not so "deep", unless I've misunderstood what you mean by "deep".

Looking at the precepts in that way, anything that you might feel guilty about is best avoided.

In what way?

What do yo mean by "guilt"?

metta

[mikenz66]

I don't think it makes sense to apply deep teachings of the aggregates to the precepts.

There not so "deep", unless I've misunderstood what you mean by "deep".

They are advanced teachings of the Buddha.

Looking at the precepts in that way, anything that you might feel guilty about is best avoided.

In what way?

What do yo mean by "guilt"?

metta

Just the run-of-the-mill meaning. That you might be breaking the law, get yelled at, that sort of thing. Anything that makes you nervous about what you are doing. Nothing deep or specific to Buddha-Dhamma, except that if you feel guilty or nervous it's distracting.

To spell it out in an extreme way, if you're worried the police are going to break down your door because you stole something, or killed someone, then that's not going to very conducive to Dhamma practice...


Mike

[Dhammanando]

So downloading the same stuff is legal in Switzerland and illegal in the USofA. So is the 2nd precept a matter of geography?

One factor in transgression of this precept is that the thing taken is adinna, a thing-not-given.

A thing counts as a given-thing if it comes into one's possession (possession being defined in the KhpA as "capability to use or dispose of it as one pleases") in such a manner as would neither incur the punishment of rulers (raajada.n.da) nor be "criticised by the wise" (vi~n~nuugarahita). If either of these stipulations is not fulfilled, then it's a thing-not-given.

The "punishment of rulers" clause means that the second precept is not separable from the geographical factor of local property laws. On the other hand, the "criticised by the wise" clause means that the precept is not wholly subservient to geography. It's a safeguard against the kind of geographical relativism that avers such and such to be okay if done in Switzerland but not if done in Swaziland.

[Hanzze]

A layperson's skillfulness

"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action."

— AN X 176

Wilderness is a very good synonym for internet. It's pretty usual and even not against the law in many countries to walk into the forest and take what one likes. Why? Because nearly all all do so. So sometimes such things are accepted by law (general agreement) and even by those called "wise" (they already have fallen into corruption for a long time).

[Cittasanto]

well the problem here is that people are making conventional and spiritual precepts the same.
the first four precepts of the five precepts are worldly precepts, i.e. the world (society, law) deems them inappropriate, however what society deeps inappropriate changes over time, sexual misconduct, for example, as described in the suttas would be considered broken by many in modern times where in the texts it would not of been in all cases, such as poligamy; hiring a prostitute; courtesan...
the same is true here, as theft is a worldly precept, when something is similar (i.e. when the UN or other governmental agency) deams something tantamount to, or there is a prosecution due to the possibility of infringement (in this case) the precept is broken when the act is knowingly done, when applying the four great standards, (which do need applied at times to lay precepts also)

[Maarten]

I think the idea of intellectual ownership is ridiculous. Lets say I were to “own” every single musical note. Then I could ban others from using these notes and be the only one in the world with the right to compose music. To me that is crazy.
Ideas are also not unique, there are always others who came up with the same idea completely on their own. Why would they not deserve the same rights?

[Kim OHara]

Maarten,
Can I suggest that you read the whole of this thread so that others don't have to write it all again for you?

I think the idea of intellectual ownership is ridiculous.

Starting with your conclusion is a really good way of reaching it.

Lets say I were to “own” every single musical note. Then I could ban others from using these notes and be the only one in the world with the right to compose music. To me that is crazy.

To everyone that is crazy. In fact, it is a strawman argument.

Ideas are also not unique, there are always others who came up with the same idea completely on their own. Why would they not deserve the same rights?

They do. Anything that anyone creates on their own is their own property, automatically. That does not mean that appropriating others' work is okay, any more than appropriating others' apples, instead of growing your own, is okay.


Kim

Edit: fixed typo.

[BubbaBuddhist]

Greetings my friends,

I wonder if anyone who has taken the side which supports illegal downloading has actually released a product of the fruits of their creative efforts. I have, as have many of my acquaintances. When you find one of your books or DVDs on a torrents site it causes a sick feeling. So much so I have many friends, very creative people, who have stopped production because they've said, "Why bother? The creeps will just pirate it and put it up on the Internet." So not only does this practice hurt the creator, it hurts the audience, as creators cease production in despair.

I think there is an attitude of entitlement, that many people feel they have a "right" to the fruits of other's creative efforts and talents, without paying, that information, services and damn near everything else should be given freely and without recompense. Fine. You give me something in return and I'll reciprocate; I love the barter system. But as old Heinlien loved to say, TANSTAAFL kiddies.

When I find my material on a torrents site I immediately contact the host with a DMCA takedown notice and have it removed. If they do not comply, my attorney gets involved. This is how strongly I, as a creator of original material, feel about this issue. As for the question of whether or not it takes money away from the creator, yes, it does. My sales go down when one of my products is torrented, and goes back up when I have the torrent removed. Unfortunately people, like water, seek their own level,and it's often the path of least resistance, so if they can get something they want for free, they will do so, and if they can't they'll pay for it. If it's a luxury item like music, movies or a book, they'll find a way to pay for it if they really want it. As someone pointed out, it ain't insulin, they don't need it to live. If you can't afford it don't get it. I wanted a piano but I didn't go out and steal one; I put money away in a savings account until I could buy it. The same principle applies here.

I'm about to publish a fiction series in e-book format with a website and extensive Internet marketing to promote it. I know there will be pirating even though the e-books will be reasonably priced at around $2.99 each, and the audio books at around $9.99. And I will be diligent at having the torrents removed, because I believe creativity and hard work should be rewarded, but I'm old-fashioned that way.

My two cents,

The Bubba

[Kim OHara]

Well said, BB!


Kim

[Hanzze]

At a good level of observing "Not taking what is not given" download it self would be not easy, so there would be no doubt at all in regard of illegal download.

Believe in something that is called "right" just makes the work on deeds impossible.

[Cittasanto]

agreed, well said BB