Is watching/reading illegal content considered breaking the second precept? For example (TV Shows, Movies, Books)

[Gami47]

[cappuccino]

Stealing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.

taking what is not given

[JamesTheGiant]

Yes unfortunately it is stealing, even though the only victims are gigantic multinational media corporations.

"Federal law (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506) provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental, or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. Criminal penalties can be as high as five years in prison or $250,000 in fines.
Civil penalties can be $750 to $150,000 for each work (each song, movie, tv show, game, or software program) being illegally distributed."

[Coëmgenu]

"Reproduction" is very important in the above, because pirating isn't actually stealing, but it is absolutely "unauthorized reproduction," which is just as illegal pretty much everywhere. You are also violating the copyrights of creatives as well as those who profit off of them when you pirate.

[KathyLauren]

The wording of the Second Precept ("Taking that which is not given") is significant.

In Western traditions, the word "stealing" is used. The connotation is depriving the rightful owner of the item. And amateur loopole-seekers use that to claim that, since copying does not deprive the owner of the original item, it is not wrong.

In Buddhism, the connotation of "taking that which is not given" is more about consent of the owner for you to have the item. It it is given, you have consent to possess it. If it is not given, you do not have consent to have it.

Copyright law, which is remarkably uniform around the world, is very much in keeping with the Buddhist precept. Copying without permission may not be "stealing", but it is "taking that which is not given".

Kathy

[SteRo]

Arguing with precepts is for the dumb.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

None of the replies answer the original question. “Is watching / reading illegal content considered breaking the second precept?”

[cappuccino]

None of the replies answer the original question.

You know the answer, everyone knows

[bpallister]

Isn't it given in the sense that it is shared?

[cappuccino]

Isn't it given in the sense that it is shared?

Content creators want $

[bpallister]

Desire for wealth leads to suffering.

[cappuccino]

Desire for wealth leads to suffering.

Leads to stress, but it’s necessary

[KathyLauren]

Desire for wealth leads to suffering.

So does the desire for food and shelter and the desire to pay for them.

This is not about the content creator's desires and suffering. This is about the content consumer's desire to take that which is not given. As long as the creator did not give permission to take it, the consumer is in violation of the Second Precept.

Kathy

[Alex123]

about "taking what is not given".

The confusing question is that copying isn't really taking as what the Buddha has probably meant. The owner is not deprived of his product. "Owner" still has it. Furthermore, even the issue of the owner isn't totally clear cut. Lets say an employee, or a group of employees make a movie, game, or some other digital content. Who is the real owner? The employer or the employees? Employees made their salary.
Business owner or employer can sell the product and make much more than it was originally worth, sometimes 10x profit from a thing that one didn't create.

When one downloads, lets say for example, a movie - somebody has to give it to you for you to download. It is not like one is grabbing a wallet and runs off with it (which is stealing!).

What is the difference between reading a book (for free) that one borrowed from a library vs downloading it for free? The monetary result is the same. In both cases it is "given", in both cases the owner has not lost any tangible product.

And when one is re-reading, or re-watching. Is one breaking the precept again and again?

... the only victims are gigantic multinational media corporations.

Are corporations considered to be sentient beings?


I don't endorse anything, just asking some critical questions. It would be really wholesome if everyone would always keep 5 precepts and make this world a better place for all.

[cappuccino]

And when one is re-reading, or re-watching. Is one breaking the precept again and again?

Good question