Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Alex123 »

All,

I wonder from a Buddhist POV:

Lets say person A copied (movie, music, online text, etc), and freely gave it to person B.

Has Person B technically broken the 2nd precept ("don't take what is not freely given")? He took what was freely given to him by person A.
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by andre9999 »

Alex123 wrote:All,

I wonder from a Buddhist POV:

Lets say person A copied (movie, music, online text, etc), and freely gave it to person B.

Has Person B technically broken the 2nd precept ("don't take what is not freely given")? He took what was freely given to him by person A.
Does person B know it was stolen?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Alex123 »

andre9999 wrote:
Alex123 wrote:All,

I wonder from a Buddhist POV:

Lets say person A copied (movie, music, online text, etc), and freely gave it to person B.

Has Person B technically broken the 2nd precept ("don't take what is not freely given")? He took what was freely given to him by person A.
Does person B know it was stolen?

Is copying = stealing from Dhamma (not worldly) POV? The original physical item is not taken from the owner. The owner still has his physical item intact.
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

I think there needs to be made a distinction between stealing and copying. If you steal you deprive the owner of the object from it. If you copy it, you don't deprive the owner.

Is it skilful to copy a CD? I think not, but I also think it's not a serious offense. In the vinaya there's an exception for monks that allows them to eat fallen fruit. Strictly speaking, this would normaly be considered stealing, since the owner is deprived of the fruit, which could still be used for making something. Still, this is allowed to do in time of famine and if the fruit is laid on the floor and a lay person picks it up and gives it to the monk. So I infer that a lay person is allowed to do this directly without having to lay the fruit on the floor for anyone to give it to him. I think downloading files has the same level of severity as this exception in the vinaya.

I may, of course, be wrong and I sometimes feel uncertain and somewhat guilty for downloading files.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by andre9999 »

Okay, sure there's a distinction between stealing and copying.

I have another distinction to consider. You need to eat. Do you need copied software, music, movies, etc.?
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Do you need to buy it?
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by andre9999 »

Modus.Ponens wrote:Do you need to buy it?
I don't understand your point.
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

My point is that you have as much a need to buy a CD as a need to download it. In the end you just want to hear it.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by andre9999 »

Modus.Ponens wrote:In the end you just want...
So all these arguments about copying versus stealing, or about whether it deprives the seller or not, you need to make those distinctions over "wants"?

The lengths people will go to justify their actions...
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Now it is I that don't understand what you're saying (in the first part).

As for the second part, here's no need for judgement. You can just say why my interpretation of the exception in the vinaya is wrong. As I said, I could be wrong there so why don't you point out where it is wrong?
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by andre9999 »

Modus.Ponens wrote:Now it is I that don't understand what you're saying (in the first part).

As for the second part, here's no need for judgement. You can just say why my interpretation of the exception in the vinaya is wrong. As I said, I could be wrong there so why don't you point out where it is wrong?
I'm saying that it's probably not an accident that "copying" portion vinaya spoke of food - a need. The Buddha didn't say that if a monk wants some gold and a palace guard isn't authorized to give the king's gold to him, then that's not an offense.

I'm not really judging you or anyone else. Just kind of marveling at the complicated justifications I see on DW sometimes when it comes to "wants". Really seems to miss the point.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not up here on some high horse. I am a greatly flawed person... hence I am not judging you.
Mawkish1983
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Mawkish1983 »

Modus.Ponens wrote:If you copy it, you don't deprive the owner.
I disagree. You copy it, so you have the product without paying for it. If you obtained the product legally, by paying for it, the owner would have the money it is worth. So, by copying it you have deprived the owner of the money the product is worth. In the case of record companies, that is the only reason they provide the product for sale in the first place: to make money.

I understand that according to the letter-of-the-law this wasn't considered stealing 2500 years ago, but 2500 years ago I don't think there were record companies releasing music on CD/mp3/whatever to make money. I think the important thing to consider is the spirit of the Dhamma. The music isn't given freely, and copying it deprives the record companies of the money they should make by selling the music. Worldly law calls it stealing. I also think it's stealing.

You don't have to agree with me :)

Edited to correct grammar
User avatar
mirco
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by mirco »

Moth wrote: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?
Hi Moth,


for me, downloading and using cracked software is taking what is not freely given in terms of stealing.
If sharing and uoloading is even worse, I don't know.

But one has to see why the Buddha has put up the precepts/silas.

For Him, everything was about meditation and showing the fastest and easiest way to Nibbana.
Actions are followed by effects . The actions that are covered by the precepts are those,
that are followed by mental states und feelings, which are hindering the progress in meditation.
So, the first one who is experiencing the effect of taking what is not freely given is the theft's mind.
What is sila? wrote:The 5 basic precepts are guidelines for smoother meditation and a balanced life. Breaking these precepts will lead to difficult meditation and suffering .

Be Well ツ Mirco
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Alex123 »

Mawkish1983 wrote:I disagree. You copy it, so you have the product without paying for it.
You have the duplicate without hurting the original copy.
Mawkish1983 wrote:If you obtained the product legally, by paying for it, the owner would have the money it is worth. So, by copying it you have deprived the owner of the money the product is worth.
Not paying is not called "depriving money". You are not stealing money, you are simply not adding money to the owner.

If the owner had, lets say, 500K in the bank account, copying a $10 (or whatever it costs) product would still leave the owner with 500K in the bank account.

Mawkish1983 wrote:The music isn't given freely,
Unless it is freely given by someone who first copied it.


Buying or copying music to enjoy the music is instance of lobha - and in that sense, both are akusala.



here is interesting question:

Would freely giving copies of that copy to others be considered dāna (generosity)?
User avatar
mirco
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by mirco »

Alex123 wrote:If the owner had, lets say, 500K in the bank account, copying a $10 (or whatever it costs) product would still leave the owner with 500K in the bank account.
Hi Alex,

if it's copyrighted, the law says one has to pay for it.

Best Regards, Mirco :-)
Post Reply