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

[cappuccino]

maybe some experience could be able to change the purity notion about downloading of copies.

were you a musician, or whatever, you would think differently

[zerotime]

were you a musician, or whatever, you would think differently

why?

[cappuccino]

why?

you would realize that free does not work

[zerotime]

you would realize that free doesn't work

I understand what you says about the incomes. Everybody is experiencing problems with the design of this world which is failed by many sides. Even many people is forced to pay every month to get Energy, causing them difficulties to buy food, despite the Energy is everywhere and could be free.

Note if the Energy could be free also it would mean more incomes for musicians and publishers. And the same with many similar issues.
In the present system of global pillage sounds very complicated the opening of these solutions. Although the failed design of this world doesn't convert the download of a copy for reading in an unmoral activity. This is not stealing.

[zerotime]

I once made everything free and asked for donations

no one donated…

then better request some money for your work.

[cappuccino]

then better request some money for your work.

I would rather give it away


I’m forced to reconsider

[zerotime]

I would rather give it away
I’m forced to reconsider

well if that work is about Dhamma is better don't ask for money. On the contrary...

Good luck anyway

[cappuccino]

Good luck anyway

[KathyLauren]

"Taking that which is not given" Did the author want you to have it? "Yes" means given. "No" means not given.

All the loophole-finding is irrelevant. If the author did not want you to have it and you copied it anyway, you are in violation of the precept.

Kathy

[Ceisiwr]

"Taking that which is not given" Did the author want you to have it? "Yes" means given. "No" means not given.

All the loophole-finding is irrelevant. If the author did not want you to have it and you copied it anyway, you are in violation of the precept.

Kathy

What about when it comes to our religious texts? The authors did want to share it, but many copies of it have copyright.

[zerotime]

"Taking that which is not given" Did the author want you to have it? "Yes" means given. "No" means not given.
All the loophole-finding is irrelevant. If the author did not want you to have it and you copied it anyway, you are in violation of the precept.

wishes from others cannot be the moral founament for the own actions.

the user Cortadew explained this point quite well in his message:

It is important to understand as well that the question of whether copyright infringement is unethical hinges not on whether the owner doesn't want you to copy, but on whether they have a right to forbid you to copy. It is not unethical doing something just because you know someone else doesn't want you to do it; otherwise I shouldn't have become a Buddhist.


at Buddha times endless audio copies were made using the oral transmission. The copy in itself is not unmoral.

Discussion about the wishes of the author with what he liberates to the world is a different one. About knowing if when we free something to the world still belongs to us.

[cappuccino]

People see nothing wrong with drinking alcohol


Meanwhile there is a lot of mental illness

[KathyLauren]

wishes from others cannot be the moral founament for the own actions.

Then why does the precept talk about giving? It cannot be irrelevant or the wording would have been different.

Kathy

[Alex123]

this issue is a blind spot for people


similar to alcohol…

Alcohol is wrong. Don't drink it!

[Alex123]

"Taking that which is not given" Did the author want you to have it? "Yes" means given. "No" means not given.

Breathing air is taking which is not given. Are we breaking the precept with every breath?

Downloaded file, by definition is given by the seed. The file is duplicated, not forcefully taken like one would take someone's wallet. The author's wishes are irrelevant, and often the author isn't even the owner of the product. The company/corporation is, and it isn't a living being that is harmed.