That might a be a form of "selfless action", but a lack of concern for any negative consequences for the provider is also - in itself, and without any other considerations - consistent with mere heedlessness. The issue here is whether there is a concern for negative consequences for other people too, including in this case the author. The difference is analogous to providing homeless people with free food. If it is done merely in accordance with the dictum that it is "without concern for what negative consequences this might have for the provider", then that is consistent with shoplifting food and then distributing it. That's mere heedlessness. I would have thought it better to buy the food legally and then distribute it. Then it is truly your own largesse, rather than expropriation.
Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
You are entitled to ask that they don't do that, but by the same token they are entitled to ignore you asking. Your imperative that someone not do something carries, as it stands, no more weight than their imperative that you do what they tell you to.
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
This would be a good comparison if you had the ability to buy one meal and then multiply it so it would turn into hundreds or thousands of identical meals. Then the challenge would be how to distribute them. If it were still like the illegal book downloads, it would be as if the vast majority of people who accepted a meal didn't even taste it after receiving it. Some of them might only take a bite or two and not eat the rest.
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
If you borrow a digital copy of a book from a friend without the author's permission, then the author has presumably already sold the rights of the book in exchange for a share of the purchase price.
chownah
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
The salient point in the comparison is that if the food is legally bought, the buyer recompenses the original provider. In the case of the illegal download, no such recompense is provided, regardless of how many copies are made.Inedible wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:50 pmThis would be a good comparison if you had the ability to buy one meal and then multiply it so it would turn into hundreds or thousands of identical meals. Then the challenge would be how to distribute them. If it were still like the illegal book downloads, it would be as if the vast majority of people who accepted a meal didn't even taste it after receiving it. Some of them might only take a bite or two and not eat the rest.
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
It is all too common that people ignore my request....people are often quite willing to try to force others to do things and a common way to do this is to force their moralistic views onto them.
My request has more weight than their moralistic coercion.
chownah
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
The salient point is that if whoever puts the material on the internet freely gives it to people then what the people get is freely given.....and if someone has a problem with this then they should go talk to the person who is freely giving it out.....the person freely giving it out is the one who theoretically has breached their agreement with whoever is supposed to own the legal rights to the material.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:23 pmThe salient point in the comparison is that if the food is legally bought, the buyer recompenses the original provider. In the case of the illegal download, no such recompense is provided, regardless of how many copies are made.Inedible wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:50 pmThis would be a good comparison if you had the ability to buy one meal and then multiply it so it would turn into hundreds or thousands of identical meals. Then the challenge would be how to distribute them. If it were still like the illegal book downloads, it would be as if the vast majority of people who accepted a meal didn't even taste it after receiving it. Some of them might only take a bite or two and not eat the rest.
chownah
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
If that were so, then it would not be an illegal download. The author can either sell rights to a person who thereby acquires those rights to dispose of as they think fit, including making them freely available on the internet; or the author or the holder of the rights can retain those rights in order to make money on subsequent purchases. It is the latter case where illegal downloading is possible.
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
They are both imperatives. Neither has any power to make another person do one's bidding. If people ignore your request, then you probably ignore their "moralistic coercion". If your request is not a "moralistic coercion", then why should anyone comply with it?chownah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:26 pmIt is all too common that people ignore my request....people are often quite willing to try to force others to do things and a common way to do this is to force their moralistic views onto them.
My request has more weight than their moralistic coercion.
chownah
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
Of course. They might also want to reflect on their role in using stolen property. It's up to them how deeply they want to consider this.chownah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:29 pm The salient point is that if whoever puts the material on the internet freely gives it to people then what the people get is freely given.....and if someone has a problem with this then they should go talk to the person who is freely giving it out.....the person freely giving it out is the one who theoretically has breached their agreement with whoever is supposed to own the legal rights to the material.
chownah
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
According to our society and laws at this time. I don't believe the notion of "intellectual Property" or the ownership of ideas and knowledge is supported in the Buddha's teaching. Are you accusing the Buddha of being a "commie"?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:13 pmIf I write a novel and copyright it that is my property. No different from bioscience & pharmaceutical companies and their technology & drugs.
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
This so-called "selfless action" is not what the Lord Buddha taught.
Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn’t hurt others
if you love yourself. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud5_1.html)
those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN3_4.html)
Monks, the establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, ‘I’ll watch after myself.’ The establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, ‘I’ll watch after others.’ When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN47_19.html)
chownah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 4:41 am People,
If you think that downloading something from the internet is stealing then by all means DO NOT DO IT.....because if you do then you will be intentionally stealing. On the other hand if you don't think that downloading something form the internet is stealilng then if you do it you will not be intentionally stealing....isn't this what the buddha taught?
chownah
People,
Don't try to force your moralistic views on me. I will consider for my self if I think that downloading something from the internet is stealing....or immoral in some other way. I support people having the chance to explain on line how downloading something from the internet can be considered stealing....and I support people having the chance to explain on line how downloading something is not stealing.....and I support letting each individual decide for themselves what is what in this regard.....
chownah
Speak in praise of virtuous conduct and encourage other people to undertake a virtuous conduct is skillful per se and part of the practice.
Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I, by way of theft, were to take from another what he/she hadn’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, he gets others to refrain from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN55_7.html)
Virtue is the cornerstone of a long lasting happiness and Nibbana and the Lord Buddha said that "admirable friendship" is the whole of the path. What is the point to seek out the company of other "buddhists" (supposedly "admirable friends") if they do not inspire/encourage you somehow to keep going on (working on your virtue)? And to find out that there are so-called "buddhists" openly speaking in praise of unvirtuous behavior is quite a disappointment. If this wrong view lurks in as far as the monastic environment, it will help to hasten the downfall of the Buddha Sasana.
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
DaniloSS wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:31 pm
This so-called "selfless action" is not what the Lord Buddha taught.
Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn’t hurt others
if you love yourself. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud5_1.html)
those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN3_4.html)
Monks, the establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, ‘I’ll watch after myself.’ The establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, ‘I’ll watch after others.’ When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN47_19.html)
Speak in praise of virtuous conduct and encourage other people to undertake a virtuous conduct is skillful per se and part of the practice.
Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I, by way of theft, were to take from another what he/she hadn’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, he gets others to refrain from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN55_7.html)
Virtue is the cornerstone of a long lasting happiness and Nibbana and the Lord Buddha said that "admirable friendship" is the whole of the path. What is the point to seek out the company of other "buddhists" (supposedly "admirable friends") if they do not inspire/encourage you somehow to keep going on (working on your virtue)? And to find out that there are so-called "buddhists" openly speaking in praise of unvirtuous behavior is quite a disappointment. If this wrong view lurks in as far as the monastic environment, it will help to hasten the downfall of the Buddha Sasana.
A lot of people misunderstand virtue and no-self and take no-self too far into denying a self.
And to make matters simple to understand: if you didn't buy it, or it wasn't given to you, it's not yours, so don't touch it. Doesn't matter if it's a virtual file or a physical object.
- rhinoceroshorn
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm
Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?
People defending piracy!!!!
They certainly must be noobs, beginners, unvirtuous!!!!
Just watch Bhante Yuttadhamma (who is btw very knowledgeable) defending publicly piracy: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... /2869#2869
He certainly must be contributing to the fall of the Sassana!!!!11
They certainly must be noobs, beginners, unvirtuous!!!!
Just watch Bhante Yuttadhamma (who is btw very knowledgeable) defending publicly piracy: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... /2869#2869
He certainly must be contributing to the fall of the Sassana!!!!11
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
Re: There is no difference between reading a book at a library and downloading it online
Indeed. As society changes we recognise the need to legally protect different types of property. Why do you think the Buddha would be opposed to an author having their novel recognised as being their property in law? And no, because I see that the Buddha had a concept of private property and never argued against it for householders and I don’t see an argument for him being opposed to intellectual property rights. The Buddha was too smart and wise to be a commie.Mr Man wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:30 pmAccording to our society and laws at this time. I don't believe the notion of "intellectual Property" or the ownership of ideas and knowledge is supported in the Buddha's teaching. Are you accusing the Buddha of being a "commie"?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”