Does illegal downloading violate the 2nd precept?

[samseva]

The only reason there is such a debate about pirated software and digital information is the factor that these can be duplicated, which is the main argument for those who don't consider it as stealing. Remove that and the the whole debate falls to pieces; making it theft.

[Zom]

I'm wondering how do you guys come to a conclusion?

Easily. I just take what was given to me. If I download something, I take the information given to everybody, so for me subj is not a dilemma at all.

The only reason there is such a debate about pirated software and digital information is the factor that these can be duplicated, which is the main argument for those who don't consider it as stealing. Remove that and the the whole debate falls to pieces; making it theft.

Exactly. You can't steal immaterial things, like software, information, ideas, fantasies, thoughts, etc. The first one who "invented that" may/will try to make money out if it, and, of course, he will suffer if his income will be lower than he expected - let's suppose he can't sell many copies because of "pirates". But this differs much from the person whose personal belongings were stolen. However, if you have only one and only copy on a material CD, this CD can become very precious, and stealing it will create a bad kamma for a thief (big kamma if he knows that it is very precious, and slight kamma if he thinks that this is just an empty/useless CD).

Having said that, sometimes I intentionally buy something which I can just download for free - when I find this particular "immaterial thing" very useful for me and want to thank people who invented that.

[samseva]

You can't steal immaterial things, like software, information, ideas, fantasies, thoughts, etc. The first one who "invented that" may/will try to make money out if it, and, of course, he will suffer if his income will be lower than he expected - let's suppose he can't sell many copies because of "pirates". But this differs much from the person whose personal belongings were stolen. However, if you have only one and only copy on a material CD, this CD can become very precious, and stealing it will create a bad kamma for a thief (big kamma if he knows that it is very precious, and slight kamma if he thinks that this is just an empty/useless CD).

I am sure that deep deep down, most who don't consider piracy as theft still consider it as stealing, or at the least unethical.

[Zom]

I am sure that deep deep down, most who don't consider piracy as theft still consider it as stealing, or at the least unethical.

Only those who's been brainwashed -)

Even if we take subj as stealing (though in reality this is not so) - illegal downloading will still be unreproachable. Why? Because the situation will be similar to "meat question", solved by the Buddha in MN 55:

1) Butcher kills an animal (analogy -- a pirate makes an illegal copy... though he didn't steal the master-disk itself)
2) Butcher sells this meat (analogy -- a pirate... emm.. even gives for free -)
3) You can't buy this meat in one of these three cases: if it was killed for you, or you know that, or suggest that it was killed for you. Analogy -- it is not for you personally this pirate made an illegal copy which you download.

So, even in this case there is no blame.

But still, like in the situation with "meat eating" some people keep rejecting Buddha's words and keep insisting that eating meat is bad - exactly in the same way people keep criticizing others for illegal downloading and abstrain from illegal downloading themselves.

[Mr Man]

You can't steal immaterial things, like software, information, ideas, fantasies, thoughts, etc.

Tell that to the judge.

[Zom]

Tell that to the judge.

You can't tell the judge many things. Like that killing animals for meat is bad and should be banned. He is not interested, because the law allows to kill animals .) This shows that the law is one thing, and ethical behavior is another. They may interfere, or may not.

[samseva]

I am sure that deep deep down, most who don't consider piracy as theft still consider it as stealing, or at the least unethical.

Only those who's been brainwashed -)

[…]

Whether or not it is stealing, it is still unethical and illegal.

Regarding your meat analogy, the Buddha condoned meat-eating because being selective regarding almsfood would have made obtaining food more difficult. It is not the same as going to the groceries and buying a pack of meat.

[Zom]

Whether or not it is stealing, it is still unethical and illegal.

-)

Regarding your meat analogy, the Buddha condoned meat-eating

Buddha would never allow unethical things.

[Mr Man]

Tell that to the judge.

You can't tell the judge many things. Like that killing animals for meat is bad and should be banned. He is not interested, because the law allows to kill animals .) This shows that the law is one thing, and ethical behavior is another. They may interfere, or may not.

Yes and theft, is determined by law. To say "You can't steal immaterial things" is incorrect.

[Mr Man]

Whether or not it is stealing, it is still unethical and illegal.

-)

Regarding your meat analogy, the Buddha condoned meat-eating

Buddha would never allow unethical things.

You think Buddha would say "It's fine to ignore the laws of the land and download illegal software"?

Does your ethics come purely from the Buddha?

[Zom]

To say "You can't steal immaterial things" is incorrect.

Correct. You can't steal an idea. You can only copy it or follow it, you can use it, even if it is not yours.

You think Buddha would say "It's fine to ignore the laws of the land and download illegal software"?

Why not? Especially when certain laws are wrong in ethical terms.
Probably many people would also assume that eating meat is wrong, because it is connected with killing. But Buddha said: "Yes, you can eat meat".

Does your ethics come purely from the Buddha?

Yes.

[Mkoll]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. It's a good one and personally relevant to many, including myself. I read through quite a bit of it and here are a two of the more powerful snippets from someone personally affected by digital piracy (my emphasis added):

It's not as if the stuff downloaded from torrents are necessities for life. These are luxuries; ornaments. Indulgences. We don't NEED them. But the musicians and authors depend on the income to survive. What I'm sensing/hearing here is an attitude of entitlement; that many of you feel you have a right to the fruits of other people's creative effort's without recompensing them for it; without any effort or payment from you.

When I find my material on a torrents site I immediately contact the host with a DMCA takedown notice and have it removed. If they do not comply, my attorney gets involved. This is how strongly I, as a creator of original material, feel about this issue. As for the question of whether or not it takes money away from the creator, yes, it does. My sales go down when one of my products is torrented, and goes back up when I have the torrent removed. Unfortunately people, like water, seek their own level,and it's often the path of least resistance, so if they can get something they want for free, they will do so, and if they can't they'll pay for it. If it's a luxury item like music, movies or a book, they'll find a way to pay for it if they really want it. As someone pointed out, it ain't insulin, they don't need it to live. If you can't afford it don't get it. I wanted a piano but I didn't go out and steal one; I put money away in a savings account until I could buy it. The same principle applies here.

And this recent post by Ven. D:

With any contested moral issue, when things seem to be getting overly complicated, the ethic of reciprocity (aka Golden Rule) will usually suffice to cut through the sophistry and dictate a felicitous conclusion. In the present case I think we all know perfectly well that if our livelihood depended upon receipt of royalties for our creative work, then we would feel robbed if people were making use of our work in a way that bypassed paying us our due. How then can we treat others like that?

If I put myself in a content creator's shoes, whose livelihood depends on the sale of his content, I too would be outraged that people are stealing my product without paying a penny for it. If you want a luxury good that someone put their labor into and are offering for sale, pay for it. Otherwise, live without it.

[ihrjordan]

How about we copyright the Buddha's doctrine as well? Oh wait... People already try to do this. I don't think the Buddha would approve.

[ihrjordan]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. It's a good one and personally relevant to many, including myself. I read through quite a bit of it and here are a two of the more powerful snippets from someone personally affected by digital piracy (my emphasis added):

It's not as if the stuff downloaded from torrents are necessities for life. These are luxuries; ornaments. Indulgences. We don't NEED them. But the musicians and authors depend on the income to survive. What I'm sensing/hearing here is an attitude of entitlement; that many of you feel you have a right to the fruits of other people's creative effort's without recompensing them for it; without any effort or payment from you.

When I find my material on a torrents site I immediately contact the host with a DMCA takedown notice and have it removed. If they do not comply, my attorney gets involved. This is how strongly I, as a creator of original material, feel about this issue. As for the question of whether or not it takes money away from the creator, yes, it does. My sales go down when one of my products is torrented, and goes back up when I have the torrent removed. Unfortunately people, like water, seek their own level,and it's often the path of least resistance, so if they can get something they want for free, they will do so, and if they can't they'll pay for it. If it's a luxury item like music, movies or a book, they'll find a way to pay for it if they really want it. As someone pointed out, it ain't insulin, they don't need it to live. If you can't afford it don't get it. I wanted a piano but I didn't go out and steal one; I put money away in a savings account until I could buy it. The same principle applies here.

And this recent post by Ven. D:

With any contested moral issue, when things seem to be getting overly complicated, the ethic of reciprocity (aka Golden Rule) will usually suffice to cut through the sophistry and dictate a felicitous conclusion. In the present case I think we all know perfectly well that if our livelihood depended upon receipt of royalties for our creative work, then we would feel robbed if people were making use of our work in a way that bypassed paying us our due. How then can we treat others like that?

If I put myself in a content creator's shoes, whose livelihood depends on the sale of his content, I too would be outraged that people are stealing my product without paying a penny for it. If you want a luxury good that someone put their labor into and are offering for sale, pay for it. Otherwise, live without it.

You seemed to have skipped by the great points made by those who go against your opinion

[Mkoll]

You seemed to have skipped by the great points made by those who go against your opinion

I didn't see any. Why don't you do the work, as I did, and quote them here? Or do you just want a free lunch?