Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
badscooter
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:07 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by badscooter »

Alex123 wrote:
Billymac29 wrote:So I guess you dont consider stealing someones identity a theft?
It is fraud and lying, I believe.
That was kind of a rhetorical question. I used the word stealing in my question to show I was implying that it was theft.
However, I agree with you that it is also fraud and lying.

Billymac29 wrote: Since it is copying down someone's information and using it without his/her consent and/or knowledge... Not depriving them from using it...
It can be used to directly steal money from Bank accounts or credit cards, access confidential information, or it could be used to mess up someone's life.
Agreed

:anjali:
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote:
tobes wrote:
I find the appeal to 'logical common sense' and in the post before the appeal to 'social norms' pretty unsatisfactory.
Can you show how social norms does not apply to the precepts and would not be covered here. as an example the intellectual property rights.

The internet is a privilage not a right btw, and although it is free to use the content is not necessarily publicly owned.
Well I think Buddhist precepts are are grounded in a logic of consequentialism - obviously connected with kamma - not on whatever happens to be socially normative at a given time (i.e. a kind of social constructivism).

There are really two dimensions at play - firstly the metaphysics of kamma/paticcasamuppāda which in some respects is taken to be a kind of natural law. i.e. it's an explanation for how reality (and agency) functions.

Secondly the normative response to that view - that humans ought to act in certain ways, such that they are attuned to that reality (and ultimately of course, overcome it). The conceptual wording of the precepts are expressive of that normative response. I agree that because we are in the sphere of language and concepts, we are automatically in a sphere of social conditioning/ constructivism. But the normativity of the precepts does not refer principally to those conditions - which will always be highly variable. The normativity refers to the first dimension I mentioned - it is a response to the functional reality of kamma/paticcasamuppāda.

The implication is that we cannot take highly variable social-political conditions to be the normative basis for what the precepts refer to. Doing so would leave us with the intractable problem that when pernicious social-political conditions arise, the moral Buddhist just goes along with them.

What the moral Buddhist must do is determine the relationship between the demands of the precepts and the variability of particular social-political norms. For example, if you live in a state which commits to a pernicious war, and conscripts you to fight in it, you ought to uphold the precept not to kill against the social norm that fighting for your state is courageous and virtuous.

The question of intellectual property rights and the internet is obviously far more complex and murky. My point is not to argue strongly one way or the other, but merely to point out this complexity and murkiness.

For example, you posit a distinction between private and public goods - which is a liberal distinction - and assume this to be immutable. But is it? Actually, in political economy this is highly contested, and it is not clear where a Buddhist position might sit in relation to that contestation.

You also assert that the internet is a privilege not a right. I agree that there is no basis to call it 'a right' - but whose privilege is it? If the internet is itself a global commons - and this is clearly how it started - how coherent is the demand that some content is ownable? I have seen very plausible arguments the other way: the existence of a free commons has been co-opted by that very logic of private ownership. If there is a problem of theft, it is of particular states/agents/corporations colonising something which is not theirs to colonise.

Let's take a material analogy: there is some land which people live on, share and utilise, but do not claim ownership of. Let us say, Australia in the 1700's. Then people arrive, claim ownership and set up a sovereign state on that same land. Then, whoever violates those laws of ownership is held to account by (their) law for trespass or theft. Now if you are an indigenous person who was originally there, and you end up in jail for trespass - don't you think there is something deeply immoral and unjust about that finding - even though, from a certain point of view, it is entirely lawful?

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
tobes wrote:
I find the appeal to 'logical common sense' and in the post before the appeal to 'social norms' pretty unsatisfactory.
Can you show how social norms does not apply to the precepts and would not be covered here. as an example the intellectual property rights.

The internet is a privilage not a right btw, and although it is free to use the content is not necessarily publicly owned.
Well I think Buddhist precepts are are grounded in a logic of consequentialism - obviously connected with kamma - not on whatever happens to be socially normative at a given time (i.e. a kind of social constructivism).
that is in part true, yet they are social, and take into account of changes in social norms. Please look at the great standard.
There are really two dimensions at play - firstly the metaphysics of kamma/paticcasamuppāda which in some respects is taken to be a kind of natural law. i.e. it's an explanation for how reality (and agency) functions.

Secondly the normative response to that view - that humans ought to act in certain ways, such that they are attuned to that reality (and ultimately of course, overcome it). The conceptual wording of the precepts are expressive of that normative response. I agree that because we are in the sphere of language and concepts, we are automatically in a sphere of social conditioning/ constructivism. But the normativity of the precepts does not refer principally to those conditions - which will always be highly variable. The normativity refers to the first dimension I mentioned - it is a response to the functional reality of kamma/paticcasamuppāda.
The precepts fall into two groups that which are worldly rules and rules connected directly to the practice. The Lay precepts are worded quite openly because they are minimum standards, not hard and fast detailed rules applicable in every situation from conception.
Out of the five precepts the first four are worldly rules connected with social cohesion. and the fifth is spiritual, connected with the training.
Of the Eight Precepts the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are worldly, and the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th are spiritual.
in both cases the second precept which is under discussion is worldly and any worldly determination of what theft is is counted.
The implication is that we cannot take highly variable social-political conditions to be the normative basis for what the precepts refer to. Doing so would leave us with the intractable problem that when pernicious social-political conditions arise, the moral Buddhist just goes along with them.
if the social-political landscape makes it impossible to keep the precept completely or demands one is broken then is it a good place to stay?
What the moral Buddhist must do is determine the relationship between the demands of the precepts and the variability of particular social-political norms. For example, if you live in a state which commits to a pernicious war, and conscripts you to fight in it, you ought to uphold the precept not to kill against the social norm that fighting for your state is courageous and virtuous.
and that would be breaking the precept.
please look at the white poppy appeal and conscientious objection.
The question of intellectual property rights and the internet is obviously far more complex and murky. My point is not to argue strongly one way or the other, but merely to point out this complexity and murkiness.
if I created a piece of music, and it was available online, the intelectual property is mine.
For example, you posit a distinction between private and public goods - which is a liberal distinction - and assume this to be immutable. But is it? Actually, in political economy this is highly contested, and it is not clear where a Buddhist position might sit in relation to that contestation.
I don't assume anything is immutable. anicca. hence the social norms role in the precepts.
You also assert that the internet is a privilege not a right. I agree that there is no basis to call it 'a right' - but whose privilege is it? If the internet is itself a global commons - and this is clearly how it started - how coherent is the demand that some content is ownable? I have seen very plausible arguments the other way: the existence of a free commons has been co-opted by that very logic of private ownership. If there is a problem of theft, it is of particular states/agents/corporations colonising something which is not theirs to colonise.
the privilege is with the one using it.
just as coherant as to say music or video piracy is breaking laws.
if a stall in a market held on public grounds has goods stolen from it but the public doesn't want charges pressed then does the stalls rights to its property to be protected from theft, and the thief to be brought to justice disappear? or an authors rights to control their work disappear because someone wants to reproduce the work?
Let's take a material analogy: there is some land which people live on, share and utilise, but do not claim ownership of. Let us say, Australia in the 1700's. Then people arrive, claim ownership and set up a sovereign state on that same land. Then, whoever violates those laws of ownership is held to account by (their) law for trespass or theft. Now if you are an indigenous person who was originally there, and you end up in jail for trespass - don't you think there is something deeply immoral and unjust about that finding - even though, from a certain point of view, it is entirely lawful?
things change and there are too many variables not accounted for.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote: The precepts fall into two groups that which are worldly rules and rules connected directly to the practice. The Lay precepts are worded quite openly because they are minimum standards, not hard and fast detailed rules applicable in every situation from conception.
Out of the five precepts the first four are worldly rules connected with social cohesion. and the fifth is spiritual, connected with the training.
Of the Eight Precepts the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are worldly, and the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th are spiritual.
in both cases the second precept which is under discussion is worldly and any worldly determination of what theft is is counted.
Yes, but the normative force which makes those worldly rules coherent is the logic of kamma/paticcasamuppāda - and the consequentialism related to them. Are you really denying this in favour of 'whatever the worldly determination is'? Lay people follow such guidelines because they are guidelines for kusala actions (or the abstainining from aksuala actions); it is the way for them to accumulate merit and avoid unfortunate consequences (namely, bad rebirths).

This is clearly connected to social cohesion, I grant you that. But this does not imply that social cohesion is the only the normative reason which justifies the precept, and that because of that, whatever is socially normative is (always) acceptable.

By that strange logic, fighting for a Marxist revolution (i.e. private property rights = theft and must be overcome) would be as equally as justified as fighting against it (i.e. private property rights = natural and must be defended) - the decisive factor of what is moral and right here would merely be reduced to 'which team you happen to be on at the time is right.'

I don't think the precepts are quite so pragmatic.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote:
What the moral Buddhist must do is determine the relationship between the demands of the precepts and the variability of particular social-political norms. For example, if you live in a state which commits to a pernicious war, and conscripts you to fight in it, you ought to uphold the precept not to kill against the social norm that fighting for your state is courageous and virtuous.
and that would be breaking the precept.
please look at the white poppy appeal and conscientious objection.
So the tacit commitment to a state always overrides the conscious keeping of the precepts? I am not aware of what you mention here, and happy to admit my ignorance. It seems very counter intuitive and highly problematic. Forgive me for the uncouth and boring analogy, but are you telling me that when Hitler comes to power and drafts me into the SS, my moral fidelity ought to be him and the state and not the precept?

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
What the moral Buddhist must do is determine the relationship between the demands of the precepts and the variability of particular social-political norms. For example, if you live in a state which commits to a pernicious war, and conscripts you to fight in it, you ought to uphold the precept not to kill against the social norm that fighting for your state is courageous and virtuous.
and that would be breaking the precept.
please look at the white poppy appeal and conscientious objection.
So the tacit commitment to a state always overrides the conscious keeping of the precepts? I am not aware of what you mention here, and happy to admit my ignorance. It seems very counter intuitive and highly problematic. Forgive me for the uncouth and boring analogy, but are you telling me that when Hitler comes to power and drafts me into the SS, my moral fidelity ought to be him and the state and not the precept?

:anjali:
where did I say that, please re-read and look at what I mention.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: The precepts fall into two groups that which are worldly rules and rules connected directly to the practice. The Lay precepts are worded quite openly because they are minimum standards, not hard and fast detailed rules applicable in every situation from conception.
Out of the five precepts the first four are worldly rules connected with social cohesion. and the fifth is spiritual, connected with the training.
Of the Eight Precepts the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are worldly, and the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th are spiritual.
in both cases the second precept which is under discussion is worldly and any worldly determination of what theft is is counted.
Yes, but the normative force which makes those worldly rules coherent is the logic of kamma/paticcasamuppāda - and the consequentialism related to them. Are you really denying this in favour of 'whatever the worldly determination is'? Lay people follow such guidelines because they are guidelines for kusala actions (or the abstainining from aksuala actions); it is the way for them to accumulate merit and avoid unfortunate consequences (namely, bad rebirths).

This is clearly connected to social cohesion, I grant you that. But this does not imply that social cohesion is the only the normative reason which justifies the precept, and that because of that, whatever is socially normative is (always) acceptable.

By that strange logic, fighting for a Marxist revolution (i.e. private property rights = theft and must be overcome) would be as equally as justified as fighting against it (i.e. private property rights = natural and must be defended) - the decisive factor of what is moral and right here would merely be reduced to 'which team you happen to be on at the time is right.'

I don't think the precepts are quite so pragmatic.

:anjali:
Please read all of what I wrote.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote:
For example, you posit a distinction between private and public goods - which is a liberal distinction - and assume this to be immutable. But is it? Actually, in political economy this is highly contested, and it is not clear where a Buddhist position might sit in relation to that contestation.
I don't assume anything is immutable. anicca. hence the social norms role in the precepts.

You also assert that the internet is a privilege not a right. I agree that there is no basis to call it 'a right' - but whose privilege is it? If the internet is itself a global commons - and this is clearly how it started - how coherent is the demand that some content is ownable? I have seen very plausible arguments the other way: the existence of a free commons has been co-opted by that very logic of private ownership. If there is a problem of theft, it is of particular states/agents/corporations colonising something which is not theirs to colonise.
the privilege is with the one using it.
just as coherant as to say music or video piracy is breaking laws.
if a stall in a market held on public grounds has goods stolen from it but the public doesn't want charges pressed then does the stalls rights to its property to be protected from theft, and the thief to be brought to justice disappear? or an authors rights to control their work disappear because someone wants to reproduce the work?
[/quote]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that this is indeed the question to be asked.

Not assumed to be already answered.

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: I don't assume anything is immutable. anicca. hence the social norms role in the precepts.
You also assert that the internet is a privilege not a right. I agree that there is no basis to call it 'a right' - but whose privilege is it? If the internet is itself a global commons - and this is clearly how it started - how coherent is the demand that some content is ownable? I have seen very plausible arguments the other way: the existence of a free commons has been co-opted by that very logic of private ownership. If there is a problem of theft, it is of particular states/agents/corporations colonising something which is not theirs to colonise.
the privilege is with the one using it.
just as coherant as to say music or video piracy is breaking laws.
if a stall in a market held on public grounds has goods stolen from it but the public doesn't want charges pressed then does the stalls rights to its property to be protected from theft, and the thief to be brought to justice disappear? or an authors rights to control their work disappear because someone wants to reproduce the work?
I think the point I'm trying to make is that this is indeed the question to be asked.

Not assumed to be already answered.

:anjali:
where was that assumption?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote:
where did I say that, please re-read and look at what I mention.

I apologise if I have misread you.

You seemed to be suggesting that if there is moral dilemma between fighting for the state or preserving the precept not to kill, one should decide in favour of "breaking the precept."

What precisely did you mean?

I realise that my analogy did not account for what you wrote a little earlier. I'm sorry for that - I was attempting to problematise the moral fidelity to the variable conditions of the state and social norms connected with that. I think the basic argument in it is still relevant, but I will wait to see we can clarify what you meant with respect to the above.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by tobes »

Cittasanto wrote:

where was that assumption?

The assumption is that individual intellectual property rights ought to be prioritised over a global commons, because that is the current social norm.

Isn't this your position?

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
where did I say that, please re-read and look at what I mention.

I apologise if I have misread you.

You seemed to be suggesting that if there is moral dilemma between fighting for the state or preserving the precept not to kill, one should decide in favour of "breaking the precept."

What precisely did you mean?

I realise that my analogy did not account for what you wrote a little earlier. I'm sorry for that - I was attempting to problematise the moral fidelity to the variable conditions of the state and social norms connected with that. I think the basic argument in it is still relevant, but I will wait to see we can clarify what you meant with respect to the above.

:anjali:
what I said was
and that would be breaking the precept.
please look at the white poppy appeal and conscientious objection.
how would preserving a precept break it? there are other means by which the duty could be done such as medical personel, or leaving the country. But did you look at what these are?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

tobes wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:

where was that assumption?

The assumption is that individual intellectual property rights ought to be prioritised over a global commons, because that is the current social norm.

Isn't this your position?

:anjali:
the non-assumption of already answered? it was the only assumption referenced.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by Cittasanto »

Here is a note from my studies of the second Pārājika on theft.

2. Copyright and unlicensed computer software copying does fall under this rule as it is similar to evasion of tax/customs duty. On another hand "Criminal Offences" are infringing acts of copyright carried out for commercial or trading purposes. They are "significant" where profit from the infringement amounts to one Pāda or more than one Pāda, as is the standard for this offence, and Criminal Offences where the profit is less than one pada would then be either thullacaya (if it is one to four masakas) or dukkaṭa if less than one māsaka. However, some disagree to copyrght and unlicenced computer software copying being grounds for a Pārājika, and as it is intellectual property the evasion of duty and tax is the closest as no actual property is stolen, although loss of legally valid income does potentially happen. In short criminal acts of copyright are parajika, thullacaya or dukkata. Non-criminal acts of copyright infringement should be considered as dukkata at most.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

Post by BlackBird »

As an interesting footnote to discussion on the 2nd Parajika - It isn't a parajika unless the theft is of something of value above 1/24th a troy ounce of gold. Which would be ~ $67 USD. So anything over $67 and you're no longer a monk. I'm not sure if this is used in practice however.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Post Reply