Pirated Books within Ethical Context of Refraining from Stealing

[gaurdianaq]

I have the privilege of making a living from selling my own videogame (singular now, hopefully plural soon), but I still think this is a complicated topic. I'll save my full contribution for the precepts discussion since it's ended up a bit lengthy. In short: I'd love if everyone bought the game, but I know there are edge cases where that's not possible, and I'd rather they get a chance to play and maybe contribute to word-of-mouth marketing because I don't think they'd ever buy the game.

Gassho,
Kenny
Sat Today

This is one of those areas where I wish demos were more common again, you play the demo to get a feel for the game, and then decide to buy it (that or in the case of steam, you buy the game, and then if it's not for you within 2 hours, return it).


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[Meitou]

Great question, and I'm sure this will come up soon in our ongoing study of the precepts.

For me, I firmly believe that downloading or otherwise receiving copyrighted materials that were not properly paid for (by oneself or even as a gift from another) is stealing. This goes for books, music, movies, etc., because if we participate in such activity, we are stealing from all those that earn their livelihood off of the creation of such materials (authors, musicians, distributors, etc.).

On the other hand, if materials are explicitly made available for free distribution (as many Dharma books certainly are), then that is no problem at all.

Gassho,
Rob

-stlah-

(Sorry for the extra sentence above...).


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I agree. Downloading anything pirated is taking that which isn't freely given, ie stealing, thus breaking a precept, it's that simple and I can't see how it's a difficult or complex situation as some are stating here.
Full disclosure, I've done it myself in the past and no matter how I tried to justify it, once I'd taken vows I was racked with guilt, so stopped. And until recently I would watch the BBC iplayer via a vpn, justifying it by saying I would willingly pay if I could, as I do for Netflix, Amazon Prime and ITV UK. I've stopped that now too.
I can tell already that the Precepts studies are going to be interesting this year!
Gassho
Meitou
Sattoday lah

[Elijah]

Thank you everyone for the insightful replies. You have given me a lot to think about!

Gassho,

Elijah

[Inshin]

Maybe I missed something and would be happy to be corrected since I do lot of reaserch and reading online: there's so much free Dharma texts, articles and books available and shared on-line through blogs, buddhist associations, various websites, etc, etc access to those websites is legal - how I'm I stealing it I'm not intentionally using an illegal software, vpn or a dodgy website to download this material?
After reading through all of your insightful comments I have decided not to buy an used book again, not because it is bad but to support the authors by purchasing an original copy when I can afford it.
I have "invested" in "Complete Poison Blossoms from a Thicket of Thorn: The Zen Records of Hakuin Ekaku" and "The Treasury of the True Dharma Eye: ZEN Master Dogen's Shobo Genzo" and when holding them I knew I was very lucky to be able to read it and I felt great gratitude towards Norman Waddell and Kazuaki Tanahashi for their tremendous work.
I'm finding studying the Precepts very inspiring and thought provoking.

Gassho
Sat

[Ryumon]

I am an author, and I write ebooks about computers, many of which are pirated. I'm a freelancer, so any income lost through piracy affects my bottom line. It's not that complicated.

As for deceased authors, copyrights are transferred to their descendants and are, in the US and many other countries, valid for 70 years after death.

The only real justification I see for book piracy is if a book is out of print, and the publisher has no plans to reprint it.

Gassho,

Kirk

sat

[Ryumon]

Hi Elijah,

Here is my understanding about the books at Terebess, having spoken to some people about it. The books are usually older or academic works uploaded with the author's awareness and tacit consent, and they will take them down if the author requests. In many cases, because they are Buddhist or academic books and older (not very recent), the authors are more concerned about the ideas and teachings within them being known than financial profit.

All due respect, but if they "take them down if the author requests" that can only happen if the author is aware of this. The Internet Archive got in a lot of trouble recently, putting a lot of books on their website without permission.

If the books are out of print, that's one thing. If they're not, they're breaking the law; it's not up to authors to check every website to find if their content is being distributed illegally.

Gassho,

Kirk

sat

[Inshin]

All due respect, but if they "take them down if the author requests" that can only happen if the author is aware of this. The Internet Archive got in a lot of trouble recently, putting a lot of books on their website without permission.

If the books are out of print, that's one thing. If they're not, they're breaking the law; it's not up to authors to check every website to find if their content is being distributed illegally.

Gassho,

Kirk

sat

Thank you. In my naivity and ignorance I thought that Internet Archive was a genuine library. I'll review my content and see which titles I can purchase over the time.
Gassho
Sat

[Inshin]

It is a complicated subject for me too. I know it is illegal, although I have downloaded material since I was a teenager, starting with a dial connection, it took ages to download a single tune. When I couldn't afford art I downloaded what I wanted or used the library. Now I have a job (I hope so at least, thank you Covid) and I can afford buying more things, so if I can find a copy of a book I need I will buy it. Although, I tend to buy second hand and I still use the library a lot. I download books to see if I like them, or if I can't find them anywhere (or are way too much expensive). I understand that little authors need money from their art, so if I can, I will buy it or support them, but major artists I don't think they need it as much. Someone mentioned Lucas and Star wars, I'm not a fan but I believe that Mr Lucas made millions with his franchise, would I feel guilty in downloading a SW episode? Well, to be frank... not in the slightest. Would I feel guilty in downloading a Stephen King book when his net worth is of $500 million? I think he has enough money.

Sorry for going over three sentences,
Gassho,
Mags
ST

Was Robin Hood not a thief because he only stole from the rich?
(sorry - stirring some feathers for a debate)
Gassho
Sat

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

I'm going to apologize for going over three sentences now as its certainly going to happen. These questions may look simply but as its already been pointed out there are a few different angles on this type of thing. I think its helpful to ask few questions and provide some tentative answers.

1. What is it to own something?
2. Does the nature of the "thing" owned make a difference?
3. What does it mean to be freely given?

When I think of question 1, I think of one (the owners) ability to keep others from using or interacting with said object. I didn't say that one can do what they please with the object. Pets are legally considered property but if you start abusing them and people find out there's a good chance they won't be your property for long. But what you can do is deny others access to the object and you have substantially more options for interacting with the object than others. Of course this requires laws and someone to enforce them or some kind of understanding between people.

2. The Nature of things. When what were talking about is an physical object to steal something would be put the original owner in the reverse situation from ownership. It was once my car but it was stolen and now this other person controls who does and doesn't have access to its function. This is different than if I gifted or sold the car. In those case I relinquish my ownership (free of coercion.) An interesting point is that there is no end of ownership in this model. I own something until I relinquish it or die. But how does this work for ideas, books or software? Things that can be duplicated without depriving the owner from its use. I don't think its really the same. It certainly isn't what Shakyamuni Buddha had in mind when he thought up that precept.


3. Given or taken from no one? Did the carrots I've grown give themselves to me? Does it make sense to say that? I don't think it does but does that mean I've violated the precept? They weren't given to me. I just took them. I didn't really grow them but I did bring together the conditions that allowed them to grow. Do I have a right to anything I used my labor to help bring into being? What about the berries I just picked? I didn't do anything other than stroll over in my green rubber boots and put them in a bucket. Did I steal them?

Anyway, this was just a bunch of words like a fart in the wind. They might draw attention for a bit but they won't have any lasting impact. I think the best way to deal with this stuff is to ask yourself why are you doing this? Does this action cause anyone harm?


Are we taking what wasn't given for entertainment? If so, I wouldn't consider much of a counter balance to any harm it might cause. But what if your stealing to feed a hungry child? I like to think I would be brave enough to do that if I had to. But we also have to consider harm. Is stealing someones last piece of bread to feed a starving person good? I think we might be just shifting the misery around. What about authors like Kirk? If we download copies of his work are we causing him harm? Maybe! But its also possible we weren't going to buy it anyway. In which case i don't think we are.

Long story short when we dig into these things they tend to be more complex than we realize. As for laws well they are created by us to address some kind of issue. Sometimes its to people from harassment other times its to harass people (laws that punishment people who would help slaves run away in the US. E.g. the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.) Not ever law is worthy of respect but if your going to break it I think you need to think about how it fits your practice.

Anywho, I'm afraid I went well over 3 sentences but I wanted to illustrate how complex these types of questions can be. At least for my perspective.


Gassho
Hoseki
Sattoday

[gaurdianaq]

Was Robin Hood not a thief because he only stole from the rich?
(sorry - stirring some feathers for a debate)
Gassho
Sat

Certainly, but then that brings up an entirely different discussion on ethics and such, you could make the argument that Robin Hood was creating more good karma/merit than bad because he was using those stolen goods to help the less fortunate. Meanwhile the rich in that scenario are hoarding wealth for only their own benefit while the poor starve.

Now mind you I don't think the story of robin hood is comparable to downloading a book from a rich author. I think in the case of a rich author you're not really harming the author, that being said if you're able to afford the book you should still buy it. If you can't afford it, well in the case of entertainment I doubt that one book is the only possible source of entertainment you could find. I'd also say another interesting angle to consider, is what are you planning to use the book for? Are you simply entertaining yourself, or do you hope to use the knowledge in the book to benefit others? (Obviously if you can afford to pay for the book, pay for it)

Apologies for going over.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[Sekiyuu]

I am an author, and I write ebooks about computers, many of which are pirated. I'm a freelancer, so any income lost through piracy affects my bottom line. It's not that complicated.

Honestly, it is indeed not really complicated... I just think I tell myself to not worry much about piracy and to not have a hardline stance towards it because then I'd get really bothered by all the people pirating my game which I can't really do anything about

Thankfully, despite all the piracy I'm not paying attention to, I still make a living... a true privilege.

The discussion gets more complicated if you want to dig into what "ownership" is, if you can "steal" a digital good which can be copied infinitely, and so on, but the scope of "can I download books from this one site which seems a bit sketchy?" is much smaller.

Gassho,
Kenny
Sat Today

[Seikan]

We can split hairs and argue the finer legal details (which can vary by county) ad nauseum, and we'll likely never all agree.

At the end of the day, for myself, I bring this back to "intent"—that is, am I acting out of an intent to avoid paying for what otherwise could be purchased fairly, or am I simply trying to gain access to material that is otherwise unavailable in any other legally-accessible format (that I am personally aware of)?

If we're truly acting from a benevolent position/intent, then we are likely doing all we can to avoid "stealing".

Gassho,
Rob

-stlah-


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Inshin]

Certainly, but then that brings up an entirely different discussion on ethics and such, you could make the argument that Robin Hood was creating more good karma/merit than bad because he was using those stolen goods to help the less fortunate. Meanwhile the rich in that scenario are hoarding wealth for only their own benefit while the poor starve.

Now mind you I don't think the story of robin hood is comparable to downloading a book from a rich author. I think in the case of a rich author you're not really harming the author, that being said if you're able to afford the book you should still buy it. If you can't afford it, well in the case of entertainment I doubt that one book is the only possible source of entertainment you could find. I'd also say another interesting angle to consider, is what are you planning to use the book for? Are you simply entertaining yourself, or do you hope to use the knowledge in the book to benefit others? (Obviously if you can afford to pay for the book, pay for it)

Apologies for going over.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

I agree with you on two things : Robin Hood was a silly example and that a rich author isn't necessarily harmed if someone downloads a pirated copy of his book. However it is important what RobD is saying about intention. If my intention is to avoid paying and instead downloading a book because it will greatly benefit my knowledge or whatever and it won't harm the already rich author, then the same intention can be applied to taking a jumper from Top Shop because it will benefit me and won't harm stinky rich Philip Green. Where do we draw a line? I realised that it is important to ask myself honestly : "Do I act out of greed (for knowledge, self improvement, spiritual progression or whatever else) or do I act out of genuine urge to benefit others?
Appologies for going over three sentences.
Gassho
Sat

[Margherita]

Was Robin Hood not a thief because he only stole from the rich?
(sorry - stirring some feathers for a debate)
Gassho
Sat

Hi Ania, no need to be sorry! I have been thinking about this subject a lot since I read this thread, actually. I believe I have anger problems related to this, related to authority figures and what is permitted and what is not: if someone tells me I can't do something, boy if I'm itching to do it!
As for Mr Hood, maybe that is a different topic. If I have to be honest, I would jail him. Dura lex sed lex Latin said (the law is harsh, but it is the law), but in my heart I could only praise him. And maybe, just maybe, we need more Mr/Ms Hood in this world were, to quote Oxfam:

The world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet’s population

[gaurdianaq]

I agree with you on two things : Robin Hood was a silly example and that a rich author isn't necessarily harmed if someone downloads a pirated copy of his book. However it is important what RobD is saying about intention. If my intention is to avoid paying and instead downloading a book because it will greatly benefit my knowledge or whatever and it won't harm the already rich author, then the same intention can be applied to taking a jumper from Top Shop because it will benefit me and won't harm stinky rich Philip Green. Where do we draw a line? I realised that it is important to ask myself honestly : "Do I act out of greed (for knowledge, self improvement, spiritual progression or whatever else) or do I act out of genuine urge to benefit others?
Appologies for going over three sentences.
Gassho
Sat

I mean, I think in one scenario you're taking away from the store, rather than downloading something that effectively has infinite copies. And my example about intention was if it was for the benefit of others, I don't think stealing a top will benefit others. Like if someone stole food because their family was starving. For a book, maybe someone who lives in an area that's very poor and can't afford to pay for a book, pirates a book on carpentry or farming in the hopes of learning those skills and applying them to help the people in their community. In those scenarios I feel the positive outcomes outweigh the negative action (of course I believe we should find a way to lift them out of poverty so they don't have to steal in the first place

But ultimately I think my stance boils down to buy it, my one major exception is when the book is out of print (but someone made a digital transcription of it), or it's not possibly for me to legally acquire the book in my country (and a VPN or something isn't an option to order it).

Apologies for going over


Evan,
Sat today, lah