Does Buying Or Downloading Pirate Dvds Violate The Precept Against Stealing?

[camerata]

Personally, I think that obtaining any kind of pirated movies/music/software violates the precept to abstain from taking what is not given. Arguments about high prices or excessive corporate profits are not relevant as far as Buddhist ethics are concerned.

The only exception I make is when a product like a movie is no longer available as a copyright version - or was never available. Then obtaining a free copy is not depriving the copyright owner of payment.

When products like movies simply aren't sold locally, it doesn't seem fair that we have to pay almost double to have it shipped from overseas, but up to now that's what I do.

[rockyysdt]

The only exception I make is when a product like a movie is no longer available as a copyright version - or was never available. Then obtaining a free copy is not depriving the copyright owner of payment.

Technically, isn't this also stealing, or taking what is not offered?

The process of copyrighting articles is a formal process.

There maybe a number of reasons why something maybe circulating online.

Possibly an original theft, or that the owner is IT illiterate and has allowed themselves to be exposed to exploitation.

[Xangsamhua]

I'd have no doubt that, under copyright laws, buying pirated DVDs is theft.

However, copyright laws are relatively recent, since 1710 in fact. Prior to that, intellectual property in theory belonged to God who made it freely available to be shared and used without protection or hindrance. People before 1710 used other people's work either knowingly or unknowingly. People since then often do it unknowingly, but are seen as culpable if they do it knowingly.

There is still a question in some people's mind as to the morality of putting fences around intellectual products. It can be seen as an inappropriate application of the principle of physical property rights to intellectual and aesthetic output. Some might see that as like laying claim to the air we breathe.

The notion of intellectual property rights has particular impact on the output of students, thesis writers and authors - all of whom would be in digrace if they are found to have used someone's written work without acknowledgement. But Chinese students, for example, when they were introduced in large numbers to the expectations of western universities, could not see why they should write in their own meagre words what some sage had put so much better, and as the sage, in their view, was only transmitting rather than creating higher wisdom, there was no need to acknowledge him as the author.

So, legally it is theft to buy a pirated CD, but does the owner of the copyright have a moral case for claiming the artistic output as private property? After all, he or she is drawing on a vast pool of fluid and shared intellectual and aesthetic output that can't be mustered like sheep or farmed like land?

Incidentally, a recent verdict on intellectual property led to a heavy fine on the band "Men at Work" for having included a flute riff in the hit song "Down Under" that was found to be identical to the tune of a 1934 copyrighted song. As society gets more litigious, songwriters will be hiring lawyers and musicologists to research their work before publishing or performing it. A sad outcome to the commodification and capitalization of art.

Nevertheless, Buddhists are not given the choice of which property rights to respect and which not. Even if someone has gained property by immoral means or the skullduggery of an ancestor, the property is that person's, and whether it be physical, intellectual or aesthetic, in taking it without being given it a Buddhist would violate the second precept.

IMHO

[camerata]

Technically, isn't this also stealing, or taking what is not offered?

I think that would be an overly literal interpretation of the precept. Using the same logic, if I find a 500 baht note in the street and keep it I'd be violating the precept. I try to stay with the spirit of the precept, which I believe is aimed at not hurting others by depriving them of what is theirs.

[camerata]

Nevertheless, Buddhists are not given the choice of which property rights to respect and which not. Even if someone has gained property by immoral means or the skullduggery of an ancestor, the property is that person's, and whether it be physical, intellectual or aesthetic, in taking it without being given it a Buddhist would violate the second precept.

So is that a yes or a no? Or a maybe?

The 5 Precepts are simple for a reason, IMO. How on earth could the average person keep the second precept if he had to first figure out if the property was "rightfully" the owner's? If that were the case, one could probably feel justified in stealing from half the rich people in the country.

And I don't buy the argument I sometimes hear that intellectual copyright doesn't apply because they didn't have it in the Buddha's time. Suppose two musicians were traveling in the forest. One of them is inspired and composes a song in praise of the king. That night, when he's asleep the other one rushes to the palace and presents the song to the king as his own, receiving the praise and rewards his friend should have received. I think the Buddha would have considered this theft of some kind - or at least Wrong Action. The composer was deprived of something and suffered because of it.

From what I've read, the Buddha seemed very concerned that people don't get into trouble with the authorities. If copyright is the law, I think he would advise us to comply. I don't think he ever mentioned unjust laws. He didn't rail against slavery, for example, he just told people to treat them well.

[fabianfred]

I belkiev that downloading torrents of stuff which has been publicly aired on TV is OK because I remember when everyone had a VHS recorder set to record stuff whilst they were out...

[harrry]

Technically, isn't this also stealing, or taking what is not offered?

I think that would be an overly literal interpretation of the precept. Using the same logic, if I find a 500 baht note in the street and keep it I'd be violating the precept. I try to stay with the spirit of the precept, which I believe is aimed at not hurting others by depriving them of what is theirs.

Well in most countries if you found a 500 baht note and kept it you could be charged with stealing. In T\hailand it is stealing too. Found property by law is to be reported to the police although you will be entitled to a 30% reward if the property is claimed. The police are entitled to 5%. Up to you regarding your morals though,.

[Xangsamhua]

Nevertheless, Buddhists are not given the choice of which property rights to respect and which not. Even if someone has gained property by immoral means or the skullduggery of an ancestor, the property is that person's, and whether it be physical, intellectual or aesthetic, in taking it without being given it a Buddhist would violate the second precept.

So is that a yes or a no? Or a maybe?

To the original question, a clear yes. It violates the second precept.

However, you raised the question of whether it's morally acceptable to copy or buy pirated DVDs that are not otherwise available in the county. I would think that's OK. I'm not sure what the law in Thailand says, but where I come from, if the item were printed matter, e.g. a book, and it's not available in the country or out of print, then a librarian can copy the book entirely. S/he just completes a form saying why s/he did so and can present that to copyright inspectors if required. If it's legal and makes practical sense for a book, why not for a DVD?

[camerata]

The thing is, most items produced in the West but not available in Thailand can be had from Amazon or other online retailers. So it comes down to a question of: "Is it OK to "steal" just because I would otherwise have to pay extra shipping costs and customs duty?" If we say "yes," it would seem that we are justifying the "stealing" of anything we feel is too expensive. "Not available in my country" doesn't seem to have much relevance these days. I think this is very different from "out of print."

[camerata]

Well in most countries if you found a 500 baht note and kept it you could be charged with stealing. In T\hailand it is stealing too..

Perhaps not a good example, then.

[Xangsamhua]

The thing is, most items produced in the West but not available in Thailand can be had from Amazon or other online retailers. So it comes down to a question of: "Is it OK to "steal" just because I would otherwise have to pay extra shipping costs and customs duty?" If we say "yes," it would seem that we are justifying the "stealing" of anything we feel is too expensive. "Not available in my country" doesn't seem to have much relevance these days. I think this is very different from "out of print."

Yes, I think you're right.

[rockyysdt]

I think that would be an overly literal interpretation of the precept. Using the same logic, if I find a 500 baht note in the street and keep it I'd be violating the precept. I try to stay with the spirit of the precept, which I believe is aimed at not hurting others by depriving them of what is theirs.

Recently I was accompanying a Thai who noticed a Sky Train travellor drop a 50 baht note whilst rushing off at a station.

My friend picked up the note and attempted to chase the travellor but lost them in the crowd.

Sometime later while approaching a donation receptical at a shopping centre, she took out the note and dropped it in.

She looked at me and said it wasn't hers.

Maybe it was due to an animisitc superstition which caused her to do this.

I don't know.

[Xangsamhua]

I think that would be an overly literal interpretation of the precept. Using the same logic, if I find a 500 baht note in the street and keep it I'd be violating the precept. I try to stay with the spirit of the precept, which I believe is aimed at not hurting others by depriving them of what is theirs.

Recently I was accompanying a Thai who noticed a Sky Train travellor drop a 50 baht note whilst rushing off at a station.

My friend picked up the note and attempted to chase the travellor but lost them in the crowd.

Sometime later while approaching a donation receptical at a shopping centre, she took out the note and dropped it in.

She looked at me and said it wasn't hers.

Maybe it was due to an animisitc superstition which caused her to do this.

I don't know.

I think that would be an overly literal interpretation of the precept. Using the same logic, if I find a 500 baht note in the street and keep it I'd be violating the precept. I try to stay with the spirit of the precept, which I believe is aimed at not hurting others by depriving them of what is theirs.

Recently I was accompanying a Thai who noticed a Sky Train travellor drop a 50 baht note whilst rushing off at a station.

My friend picked up the note and attempted to chase the travellor but lost them in the crowd.

Sometime later while approaching a donation receptical at a shopping centre, she took out the note and dropped it in.

She looked at me and said it wasn't hers.

Maybe it was due to an animisitc superstition which caused her to do this.

I don't know.

Maybe she's just a morally advanced person. There are plenty of morally upright people in Thailand. Unfortunately there are plenty who are not, but the good ones are there all right.

[Jawnie]

Stealing is defined as 'taking that which is not given.' Doesn't matter if it's digital.

A friend once found a check for almost $3,000US. He was a buddhist and a long-time friend. He was sitting trying to think of a way to cash the check even though there was contact information on the check. I said, '<deleted>, aren't you gonna return the check?" He got off into a rant that the person probably really wouldn't miss the money because it was made to a consulting business. I said, 'It's not yours to keep or your decision to make". He relented and call the person who wrote the check. Stealing is taking what isn't give, especially if you know it's not given.

[leolibby]

Is lent money given? I've had huge amounts of money stolen form people not paying back loans... in the Philippines, it seems they think lend means give what also about borrowing without asking?

[camerata]

From the Buddhist perspective, I would think everything depends on the person's intention.

[Several]

Doesn't Thailand have no copyright laws? I could, as usual, be wrong. If a third party copies media and puts it up for free download it should be perfectly legal. You didn't steal it because you haven't broken the law in Thailand. Or do we have to consider the laws of all countries? I know there's disagreement about this in the Sangha. Personally I'm not sure. I consider it on a case by case basis. Plus I watch the odd DVD one of our looksits brings over. I don't own them, but am I breaking this precept when I watch them?

[camerata]

Thailand does have copyright laws. In the case of movie and music copyright, there is very little enforcement and most Thais don't seem to care much about it. Watching someone else's pirate video might technically violate the precept, but I wouldn't beat myself up about it. I mean you are viewing rather than "taking."

[khaowong1]

Camerata is correct. The keyword is "intention". Taking anything that is not given is stealing. But, it all boils down to "intention". Finding lost money with no way to return it is not "intention" to stealing it. Donating that lost money to some charity gives both parties merit. Spending that found "lost" money on a pack of cigerettes for the finder probably is not the correct attitude. For us monks, most of us are very careful about picking up anything that is not given us, a piece of gum, etc. I for one don't pick up money laying on the ground. I haven't seen anything larger than a 20 baht note, but still.

[rockyysdt]

If a third party copies media and puts it up for free download it should be perfectly legal. You didn't steal it because you haven't broken the law in Thailand. Or do we have to consider the laws of all countries? I know there's disagreement about this in the Sangha. Personally I'm not sure. I consider it on a case by case basis. Plus I watch the odd DVD one of our looksits brings over. I don't own them, but am I breaking this precept when I watch them?

Does the law of the land (copyright and the like) have anything to do with the Buddhist precept of not taking what is not freely given?

There are many instances, throughout the world where law has nothing to do with justice.

If a stolen recording, is placed on the internet for free download, forgetting the "law", if I download, am l breaking a precept?

As a being practicing awareness, am l exonerated from the fruits of negative kharma if I do not do some research before downloading a copy?

I think it's been said that where there is no certainty it's better to abstain/refrain.

For example:

I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.

As sexual interaction is so complex and involves others some choose abstinence as a way of avoiding misconduct due to lack of wisdom.

Edited July 30, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

what if u listen to music on youtube, but ignore the advertizements?

[camerata]

As sexual interaction is so complex and involves others some choose abstinence as a way of avoiding misconduct due to lack of wisdom.

As with the other precepts, the simplest guide is "Don't hurt others and don't hurt yourself."

[harrry]

Maybe the topic could be Does Copyright violate the precepts?