©
I've just come across the website Buddha Torrents which specialises in linking to illegally copied and uploaded Dharma books. You would have thought that facilitating the stealing of Dharma books would be a no-brainer - just don't do it - but many Buddhists apparently feel quite comfortable with theft of electronic files when they would not walk into a shop and steal the physical book. Let me just be quite clear here. Copying is theft. All those pirated books, DVDs, and CDs are stolen. There is no grey area here. Consider the wording of the second precept:
If we take a step back into the Proto-Indo-European roots of the words, we see that the original form was *do meaning 'to give'. The word comes into Latin as donum 'gift' from which we get the English words donation, & donor. The root also underlies the words date, and time. [For more on this branch see the Online Etymological Dictionary].
So our word is a-dinna-ādāna 'taking the not-given'. In the precept verse the compound is in the ablative case - giving the sense of 'I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given'.
Clearly this is a precept about property. You cannot take someone's property against their will except by force or deception. If they give you everything they own of their own free will, in full knowledge of the consequences, that's fine. But if you take even a penny without being first offered it, then you are involved in doing something to that person against their will, i.e. doing violence. So it's not only about property, but an extension of the first precept against causing harm, with a focus on property.
It is true that as Buddhists we preach that we ourselves should not be attached to material possessions. I tend to agree with the line of reasoning that an abundance of material possessions causes more misery that it prevents. However without a roof over our heads and food to eat most of us don't cope very well. So ruling out all possessions for everyone would cause more pain that it relieved. It's not up to us to judge for other people what constitutes a minimal level of possessions. The precepts are carefully phrased in the first person: samādiyāmi 'I undertake'. It is we who undertake the training and our judgements should be directed to ourselves. So our non-attachment should make us less likely to take what is not given (in theory). If we feel that a close friend is in danger of breaking this precept, we might have a quiet word with them, tell them what we have observed and related our concerns in a kindly way. But there is little scope for standing in judgement on others. This creates a tension for people raised to believe that justices involves determining guilt, and meting out punishments.
However Sangharakshita has expanded the context of this precept beyond material possessions. He includes things like a person's time or their energy. If someone doesn't have time for us, we should not try to detain them. If they don't want to, for instance, listen to our problems, then we cannot make them. Each time we take the not given we seek to negate the other person; we seek to impose our will, and our ego, over theirs. It is a subtle form of violence. So this precept can be seen as an extension of the first precept against doing violence to other beings.
I'm going to assume that we understand the problem of doing violence and move on to consider some more specific issues.
In 2000 the internet music sharing service Napster was taken to court by the the band Metallica along with rapper Dr Dre. A separate case was brought by several major record labels. Judges ruled that Napster were indeed breaking the law by facilitating the sharing of illegal copies of music. But for some reason this remains a grey area. Lots of people I know are copying and not paying for music, films, and software. If what was being shared was physical property the issue would be clear cut. We would not condone either the burglar, nor the fence, nor any part of an operation which facilitated someone stealing our property. But apparently we are happy to do so with music. Music is different of course. Digital music is immaterial, very easily reproduced or copied, and it is very difficult for the average consumer to relate the mp3 file back to the performer.
Musician's make their livelihood from selling that music. There are some who are saying that the new media calls for new models of distribution and ownership. I notice that these people are typically already successful and wealthy, i.e. they do not have much to lose. They usually got into the position of being successful and wealthy by selling albums the old fashioned way. Start up bands, with no money, are not so convinced that giving away their music is such a good thing. Once you give people something for nothing you set up expectations.
Some people argue that so much money is made that it hardly matters if a few copies are made. But this is not an argument from Buddhist ethical principles. It seeks to bypass the principle of not taking the not given, and replace it with taking what will not be missed. And who says it won't be missed? The music industry say they are missing that revenue and record labels and music shops are struggling to stay in business. Whether or not this is good for the music is irrelevant to the Buddhist ethical case, because someone has come out and explicitly said: "do not copy this music without paying us for it." Music is not given except within the limits set out by music industry. Whether or not we think these limits are moral, ethical, or legal, is irrelevant because the relevant precept is about the not given. And outside the framework of buying CDs of MP3s the thing is not given.
There is such a thing as fair use. For instance in this blog I often cite the words of other people, from books and articles that form the basis of their livelihood. On the whole they ask that we do not copy their work wholesale, or use it without acknowledgement. So I quote little bits and endeavour to accurately state where the text comes from. This seems fair enough, and if we did not have this provision then any kind of dialogue about literature (scholarly or otherwise) would not be feasible. Indeed I believe I have raised the profile of several authors by bringing their work to the attention of a new audience.
I also use images. Images are usually classed as a whole work, so copying them is usually considered to be outside of fair use. I try to use images that are clearly free of copyright restrictions. Sometimes it's hard to tell, and I have to confess that I sometimes interpret fair use in my favour. I still stick to stating where I got the image, and when it's clear who made it I make sure I include that information. My purpose is to decorate a blog post, not suggest that I am an artist. I suspect that I could be criticised for this practice, and I'm always ready to remove images without a fight. So far no one has ever asked me to remove an image from this blog. But I would if asked to, even if fair use suggested I might get away with it. I do get a few pennies a day from Google ads and Amazon referrals but given the time I spend on this it could hardly be called a profit making venture. In my books, however, I had to be a lot more assiduous about observing copyright because the law says that where you are selling something then fair use provisions don't apply. I can't make money from someone else's work. This seems fair to me.
Buddhists are not always scrupulous when it comes to the internet and taking the not given. I have had several people copy my entire mantra website, for instance, and present it as their own work. They get quite hostile when I tackle them on the illegality and immorality of this. I've been called some nasty things because I've acted to protect my work from being degraded by poor copies. But taking the not given seems clear enough. And unless we take such principles seriously then we aren't likely to make progress, so it's in our best interests to keep the precepts.
adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmiSince I've covered the general outline of the precepts in other posts [1] I'll just concentrate on the main word: adinnādānā. The Pāli word dinna means 'given, granted, presented'. It's a past participle of the verb √dā 'to give'. In a Buddhist context it frequently refers to alms given to bhikkhus. The word is used in the negative adinna 'not-given, not-granted, not-presented'. The other part of the compound is ādānā which is a noun from the same verbal root. The stem dāna means 'that which is given, donated, granted', while the prefix ā- reverses the direction and gives it the meaning 'that which is taken, taking'.
I undertake the training step of refraining from taking the not given.
If we take a step back into the Proto-Indo-European roots of the words, we see that the original form was *do meaning 'to give'. The word comes into Latin as donum 'gift' from which we get the English words donation, & donor. The root also underlies the words date, and time. [For more on this branch see the Online Etymological Dictionary].
So our word is a-dinna-ādāna 'taking the not-given'. In the precept verse the compound is in the ablative case - giving the sense of 'I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given'.
Clearly this is a precept about property. You cannot take someone's property against their will except by force or deception. If they give you everything they own of their own free will, in full knowledge of the consequences, that's fine. But if you take even a penny without being first offered it, then you are involved in doing something to that person against their will, i.e. doing violence. So it's not only about property, but an extension of the first precept against causing harm, with a focus on property.
It is true that as Buddhists we preach that we ourselves should not be attached to material possessions. I tend to agree with the line of reasoning that an abundance of material possessions causes more misery that it prevents. However without a roof over our heads and food to eat most of us don't cope very well. So ruling out all possessions for everyone would cause more pain that it relieved. It's not up to us to judge for other people what constitutes a minimal level of possessions. The precepts are carefully phrased in the first person: samādiyāmi 'I undertake'. It is we who undertake the training and our judgements should be directed to ourselves. So our non-attachment should make us less likely to take what is not given (in theory). If we feel that a close friend is in danger of breaking this precept, we might have a quiet word with them, tell them what we have observed and related our concerns in a kindly way. But there is little scope for standing in judgement on others. This creates a tension for people raised to believe that justices involves determining guilt, and meting out punishments.
However Sangharakshita has expanded the context of this precept beyond material possessions. He includes things like a person's time or their energy. If someone doesn't have time for us, we should not try to detain them. If they don't want to, for instance, listen to our problems, then we cannot make them. Each time we take the not given we seek to negate the other person; we seek to impose our will, and our ego, over theirs. It is a subtle form of violence. So this precept can be seen as an extension of the first precept against doing violence to other beings.
I'm going to assume that we understand the problem of doing violence and move on to consider some more specific issues.
In 2000 the internet music sharing service Napster was taken to court by the the band Metallica along with rapper Dr Dre. A separate case was brought by several major record labels. Judges ruled that Napster were indeed breaking the law by facilitating the sharing of illegal copies of music. But for some reason this remains a grey area. Lots of people I know are copying and not paying for music, films, and software. If what was being shared was physical property the issue would be clear cut. We would not condone either the burglar, nor the fence, nor any part of an operation which facilitated someone stealing our property. But apparently we are happy to do so with music. Music is different of course. Digital music is immaterial, very easily reproduced or copied, and it is very difficult for the average consumer to relate the mp3 file back to the performer.
Musician's make their livelihood from selling that music. There are some who are saying that the new media calls for new models of distribution and ownership. I notice that these people are typically already successful and wealthy, i.e. they do not have much to lose. They usually got into the position of being successful and wealthy by selling albums the old fashioned way. Start up bands, with no money, are not so convinced that giving away their music is such a good thing. Once you give people something for nothing you set up expectations.
Some people argue that so much money is made that it hardly matters if a few copies are made. But this is not an argument from Buddhist ethical principles. It seeks to bypass the principle of not taking the not given, and replace it with taking what will not be missed. And who says it won't be missed? The music industry say they are missing that revenue and record labels and music shops are struggling to stay in business. Whether or not this is good for the music is irrelevant to the Buddhist ethical case, because someone has come out and explicitly said: "do not copy this music without paying us for it." Music is not given except within the limits set out by music industry. Whether or not we think these limits are moral, ethical, or legal, is irrelevant because the relevant precept is about the not given. And outside the framework of buying CDs of MP3s the thing is not given.
There is such a thing as fair use. For instance in this blog I often cite the words of other people, from books and articles that form the basis of their livelihood. On the whole they ask that we do not copy their work wholesale, or use it without acknowledgement. So I quote little bits and endeavour to accurately state where the text comes from. This seems fair enough, and if we did not have this provision then any kind of dialogue about literature (scholarly or otherwise) would not be feasible. Indeed I believe I have raised the profile of several authors by bringing their work to the attention of a new audience.
I also use images. Images are usually classed as a whole work, so copying them is usually considered to be outside of fair use. I try to use images that are clearly free of copyright restrictions. Sometimes it's hard to tell, and I have to confess that I sometimes interpret fair use in my favour. I still stick to stating where I got the image, and when it's clear who made it I make sure I include that information. My purpose is to decorate a blog post, not suggest that I am an artist. I suspect that I could be criticised for this practice, and I'm always ready to remove images without a fight. So far no one has ever asked me to remove an image from this blog. But I would if asked to, even if fair use suggested I might get away with it. I do get a few pennies a day from Google ads and Amazon referrals but given the time I spend on this it could hardly be called a profit making venture. In my books, however, I had to be a lot more assiduous about observing copyright because the law says that where you are selling something then fair use provisions don't apply. I can't make money from someone else's work. This seems fair to me.
Buddhists are not always scrupulous when it comes to the internet and taking the not given. I have had several people copy my entire mantra website, for instance, and present it as their own work. They get quite hostile when I tackle them on the illegality and immorality of this. I've been called some nasty things because I've acted to protect my work from being degraded by poor copies. But taking the not given seems clear enough. And unless we take such principles seriously then we aren't likely to make progress, so it's in our best interests to keep the precepts.
~~oOo~~
I've had second thoughts about my addendum, and have removed it.
60 comments:
It is funny that some people like to learn about the dharma by breaking the dharma.
It almost seems that some people are not able to think straight.
It doesn't seem very useful to have such a rigid stance here. If I'm poor enough to worry about paying for my food and transportation, it seems like downloading a dharma book — one that's probably available in libraries as well — would be alright. If you call that "violence," I think you're misusing the word.
Whom are you addressing? What is the reality of the situation? Do you know anyone who uses Buddha Torrents?
If someone who's completely ignorant about morality grabs a dharma PDF and comes a bit closer to approaching Buddhism, being inspired into taking ethics seriously — they haven't broken any precepts, because before they downloaded the book they didn't even know what a precept was.
As you say, we undertake the precepts as a way of training. To do this we need to actually be practicing. If it weren't for pirated books, I might not be a Buddhist practitioner today, and then I wouldn't have the opportunity to use the precepts.
Hi Roeland
Yes. I think Buddhism is predicated on the proposition that most of us do not think straight. We see things round the wrong way (vipariyāya) and arrive at views that are crooked (micchādiṭṭhi). Seeing through this (vipassanā) is difficult. Therefore we take on the training principles (sikkhapada) in order to help straighten out our thinking.
Part of the problem is that the precepts really represent a relating to other people. And the digital world has made us all rather alienated.
So we do not connect the file or the recording with a human being. In taking the thing without asking we cannot image a being that we are taking from - so we think no damage is done. This is one of the deep problems of the internet - interactions which do not stimulate empathy because none of the triggers for it are present.
Indeed having watched one of my senior colleagues happily copying music I think the connection he feels with the person sharing the music is more real than the notional connection with the people whose livelihoods he is taking when he copies the CDs. The act of sharing stimulates empathy and a sense of connection, a shared value of the music per se, and so seems a more real human connection than what he feels with the faceless company which makes the CDs or the remote 'artists'.
I hadn't thought about it this way before, so thanks for stimulating my brain cells!
Regards
Jayarava
Thank you, I feel that evolution has prepared us for face to face communication. Evolution has not prepared us for communicating through the internet.
That is why so many strange things happen online and people on the internet tend to be much more rude then in what we call 'real life.'
The best way humans can live is in small groups among people that know eachother, support eachother and share more or less the same values.
Anonymous cities are unnatural (I know because I live in one of them...) and the internet is even more unnatural.
I have to disagree with you on this post. when you make a copy of something you do not take something, you copy it. depriving someone of potential revenue is not the same thing as taking a piece of property off someone, nor is breaching a contract or infringing on someone's asserted rights the same thing as theft. The campaign, mostly by large rent-seeking corporations to equate copying with stealing is simply bunkum.
I am not sure what the Buddha's position would have been on copyright legislation, but to take the pro to-indo-european root of a precept for living and extend it to issues like copyright in electronic media is ridiculous.
Digital copying of media is a new thing, it effects things, and how everything works is being nutted out, messily, here in the real world, asserting that one group of people, those who believe that it is morally permissible to copy digital files, is breaching a precept set down by the Buddha to guide people in their relation to physical things owned by others is just reactionary, they are breaking a bunch of laws set up to protect large, profitable corporations, and many of them believe, strongly, that they are doing the right thing in hastening the destruction of that business model.
As for "Dhamma", the Buddha praised the hearing of the dhamma, so why not go copy, and read, some digital files?
Hi Mikael
Clearly I am addressing you. Have you made restitution for stealing those books in the first place? Have you even thought about it?
Actually there are many free Dharma websites (like this one) and free Dharma books so your comment about pirated books is just a self-deception isn't it.
I can see why you would not want to take a rigid approach to this precept because it would put you firmly in the wrong.
I suggest you were in the wrong by both Buddhist and ordinary Western moral standards. It would be better to just admit it and accept the consequences, than to subvert the whole of Buddhist morality so that you don't have to.
BTW If you think my stance is rigid, you should see my response to Roeland amongst the comments.
Thanks for dropping by.
Jayarava
Hi Joseph
You don't have to disagree with me, you choose to because it serves your purpose.
Although copying is indeed theft under every reasonable moral code, that is not the fundamental issue for a Buddhist. The fundamental issue is that someone has asked you not to. You are taking the not given. Which if you have made an undertaking to keep the precepts is a subversion of that undertaking. And the fact that it is illegal is secondary.
It is always entertaining to watch Buddhists try to wiggle out of keeping precepts by trotting out rationalisations.
Like Mikael you are ignoring the vast bulk of free resources which the authors give away. Free Buddhist Audio for instance. Copy all you like because it is freely given. But where the creator of the content asks you not to, then to do so is clearly a breach of the precept of refraining from taking the not given.
It would be great for Buddhists to have some balls and stand up for what they believe in instead of spouting this anti-capitalist ideology and allowing it to cloud the issue.
If one does not want to play the capitalist game the answer is to *not consume* the answer is not to *steal* from capitalists. The taking is all about greed, and the rationalisations are all about ego.
And let's be clear that from the point of view of taking the not given digital media make no difference at all. You're asked not to copy things without paying. If you do it, then you're not keeping the precept which suggests that at best you don't understand the precept you've undertaken. At worse it means you're not really a Buddhist because you fail to grasp the basics of the religion.
Jayarava
@Roeland
Yes. We're in agreement about human evolution. But I think we're stuck with cities and the internet. The question is what do we do now. I great leap backwards seems out of the question.
One answer might be that we need to evolve individually from now on, through Buddhist techniques to work with the mind. This has been suggested by Sangharakshita for instance.
Regards
Jayarava
Thanks Jayarava.
My hypothesis is that not a few of those who use sites like Buddha Torrents are young people who don't have a very strong relationship to morality, obviously not strong enough to do the conscious empathic work required to feel that copying is theft.
These people might be pretty depressed, confused, and alienated, and just trying to reach out in whatever way they can. Whatever the moral status of it, a lot of kids these days are brought up with illegal file sharing as kind of one of the normal ways to watch movies and listen to music.
I have no problem with saying that these people are acting immorally, though I would maybe rather say amorally. But remembering that I myself was such a person a few years ago, and that torrented books were part of a kind of line of flight towards morality (not a big part, I mostly used freely available teachings, especially podcasts and forums), it's not so easy for me to just say it's bad and violent and wrong.
I don't want to subvert the whole of Buddhist morality, and I really hope that's not what I'm doing.
I have received the Bodhisattva precepts and I use them as a source of power for avoiding things I used to do like ride on the bus without paying and enjoy pirated media. I have expressed regret for my past deeds, but I hadn't thought much about restitution, so thanks for bringing that up.
Hi Mikael
I don't write about morality hypothetically or try to apply Buddhist precepts to non-Buddhists. I assume that my audience is practising Buddhists who have undertaken, like me, to keep this precept. So I'm writing about how we understand and keep this precept, and not morality more general. Though clearly this is a part of a larger discussion.
One friend is gradually replacing all his stolen albums with purchased copies. He thinks it will take him a couple of years.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
@Jayarava: I totally agree with you. Internet also has its advantages like being able to share information with many people.
At the same time it is important to be aware of the dangers of unnatural living.
For example sometimes internet communication gets out of control because one does not see the face of the other person.
Anyway I greatly admire your blog. And I am a 'Metzinger fan' just like you.
Thanks Jayarava, now I understand better.
I think it's fun how the people who were kind of caught by the digital media wave beginning with Napster are coming to realize the special value of physical objects like records and books, and embodied situations like concerts, etc.
Records keep one connected to the flow of goods within the market, impose some well-needed limitations on one's hoarding, and magnify the "ritualistic" aspect of listening to music. And they're more fun to give away!
I get most of my musical satisfaction these days from playing in a band... but we mostly play covers. And I think the web sites we use for finding chords and tabs are in some grey zone of legality. We don't make any money, so I choose to assume that artists who don't actively get sites to take down their chords, appreciate that kids play their songs.
"Let me just be quite clear here. Copying is theft. All those pirated books, DVDs, and CDs are stolen. There is no grey area here."
Bruup, wrong.
Whether intellectual property is a valid form of property is a highly debatable proposition. If you believe it isn't, then copying and distributing it cannot be theft either, since by definition only property can be stolen.
Big, big gray area there, and shouting "no gray area" won't make it go away.
First, a mundane question:
I have seen the linguistic sign of √ used when reading about PIE and never understood its use there. Interestingly, a google search for the symbol yields nothing. Could you explain its use and how to read it. You use it frequently, so it would be cool to understand.
I have very long comment on ethics but am hesitant to put it here because (1) it is perhaps inappropriately long (2) it may cause frustration unnecessarily because "right ethics" is a touchy subject -- maybe even more so than " right doctrine". Any suggestions?
Hi Sabio
the square root sign √ is used by some scholars to indicate verbal roots (Sanskrit dhātu).
This notional fragment of a word carries the meaning. So in my name the jaya part stands for 'victory' and the verbal root is √ji 'to overcome, to conquer'. The root can take all kinds of forms and the other bits of the word tell you how the meaning is being applied. So jina 'a conqueror', jita 'conquered', jitum 'to conquer' and jaya 'a victory' all add bits to the root to indicate how it is being used. There are rules which describe this process. So ji forms a stem with strengthening of the root and addition of a ji > je (= jăi) ad je + a = jă-i + a > jaya [because i+a > ya]. The noun jaya derives directly from root in the same way. As a verb we then add ending to indicate time, number and person etc: i.e. jayati - present indicative 3rd person singular.
I find this part of linguistics - called morphology - particularly interesting.
With very long posts it might mean that the best place is on your blog as a feature, rather than on mine as a comment. Feel free to link to it though. I agree that right ethics is a touchy subject - I generally get a lot of comments on my ethics posts, some of them unpublishable.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Petteri
"Let me just be quite clear here. Copying is theft. All those pirated books, DVDs, and CDs are stolen. There is no grey area here."
"Bruup, wrong."
Not according to the law of all developed countries, and most of the undeveloped ones at present. This does not mean that it won't change in future, but at present copying *is* theft. To deny this is just sophistry.
But most especially it is not a grey area for Buddhists because we are supposed to operate on the principle of not taking the not given. If you take what someone has asked you not to, then you've taken the not given.
As I said above: we are Buddhists not copyright lawyers. We make vows and commitments to operate by Buddhist morality, and we do that of our own free will. Using legalese to weasel out of your commitments just means that you don't Buddhism seriously, which generally means that I don't take you seriously.
Thanks for dropping by
Jayarava
Hi Mikael
Yes. It's a bit like the recent riots in London. The media wanted to see it as some kind of protest at first - angry people making a statement. But it dawned on everyone that those who were doing the looting were well aware of the illegality and the immorality of what they were doing. They weren't "making a statement", they were just selfish and greedy, and they thought they could get away with stealing because of the confusion caused by the riots and arson.
File sharing is the same. No one can really pretend that it's legal or acceptable without appearing hopelessly naive. I don't believe that the average teenager is ignorant to that extent. What they think is that they can't get caught, therefore it doesn't matter. And this is one of the most pernicious attitudes towards morality. This is why God and Karma were invented - to keep you honest when you think no one is looking. God is watching us because we no longer live in small family based bands of 30-50 who all know that the others are doing - and apparently some people will always take advantage of that.
As Buddhists we undertake to be honest whether someone is looking or not. Though of course we don't always manage it which is where the vastly under-rated practice of confession comes in. Everyone who undertakes the precepts should really have a context in which they can confess breaches to other people who try to uphold the precepts.
Without a clear conscience the Buddhist life is not possible. And failure to empathise with the people you are robbing is hardly an excuse. It's the way of the bankers, not the way of the Buddha!
Cheers
Jayarava
OK here is the 'short' version.
I could imagine a few objections to your position:
(1) Property: I am not up on all the controversy around Intellectual Property rights, but I know they exist. But even among some Marxists and Anarchists the notion of "Property Rights" is highly questioned from the beginning. What counts as real, fair property is doubted. I wish I knew more on the subject, but I'd imagine some would
(2) Tit-for-Tat: I have heard others argue, when it comes to medicine and college text books, that companies adjust their prices to make up a profit loss for inevitable stealing, thus those who are upright in obeying the law are just supplementing those who break it. These folks feel that by continuing to resist these elevated prices, the system will collapse and improve. So it happens whether we like it or not and the Red-Queen-Principle emerges.
(3) Meta-Ethics:
Some would not subscribe to ethic which follows the letter of the law/precept. They may instead opt for using (a) consequential logic (b) intent/virtue logic (c) pragmatic logic. They may say, "I don't obey the letter of laws/precepts no matter how old they are -- even the spirit of the precept is controversial and needs context." There are ethical systems that say "Something is 'wrong' if it is illegal". A variant of that maybe "Something is wrong if some monk/prophet wrote down rules telling us it is wrong." But these folks probably disagree with this meta-ethical stance.
I think it is especially tough trying to put a One-and-Only-One spin of the True Buddhist ethical response for many reasons. I can see why these posts would be controversial, but I do think it is important to discuss how we make choices -- both in terms of personal consequences and in terms of social consequences -- opps, I guess I am a consequentialist.
"Not according to the law of all developed countries, and most of the undeveloped ones at present. This does not mean that it won't change in future, but at present copying *is* theft. To deny this is just sophistry."
Oh please, Jayarava! Surely you're not claiming that "legal=ethical" now? You were discussing copying of copyrighted material from the point of view of the Buddhist precepts, now suddenly you're a lawyer. Who's the sophist here?
There is a point here about weather the 'possessor' of the thing has a right to claim ownership in the first place. You seem to imply that as long as somebody asks you not to take something then if you do you are taking the not given. Without commenting on the specific examples in your post i wonder if this is always applicable?
For example in Jim Al Khalilis 'Shock and awe; a history of electricity' he tells the story of Marconi who patented wireless technology but didn't actually i invent it. The law allowed him to grow filthy rich on his patents, all he really did was be a better business man than the actual scientists.
I'm worried that your point (if i've understood it correctly) assumes that law and what people think they can own is in accordance with natural morality.
BTW i don't file share!
Petteri
You seem to have lost sight of what I am saying. I think you'd do well to go back to the beginning and read my definition of taking the not given.
When you've got that clear in your head, come back and have a discussion with me.
Regards
Jayarava
Hi Gambhiraḍāka
No. I think you've missed my point in the same way as Petteri.
If I put out a CD via a large company like Virgin then I put a sign on it that says "you are not allowed to copy this". Our country (and most countries) gives this legal force, but that is secondary. You may not like Virgin as a company - perhaps they use corrupt business practices, or you think they are too rich, or that Branson is a prick. None of which is central to the Buddhist who is considering file stealing because fundamentally you've been asked not to. I don't think it's unreasonable since I the artist and my production and distribution company make their living off copying it.
But all of this discussion - which has been had in the courts already (Napster) - is actually irrelevant to anyone who has undertaken to follow the second precept. "I undertake the training precept of not taking the not-given.".
This is my point. If we take on Buddhist ethical principles we should be prepared to live by them.
...cont
I'm not going to be distracted by the other debate. There may come a day when copying is neither illegal or immoral by default, as it is now, but even if copying something were to become legal and moral, we will still be bound by the precept not to take the not given. So for instance if it was both legal and customary to copy CDs and I asked you not to copy mine, if you took the precept seriously you would not copy my copy.
When Buddhists start arguing over the definition of property in order to justify taking the not-given you know that something has gone terribly wrong.
I suspect that most people who argue for file sharing to be legal and moral are not people who are creators. They have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Or you get people like Cory Doctorow who is already successful and it doesn't matter much if he gets no new income. But the average person who makes a living from being creative, or who takes creativity seriously (I'm in the latter group) find copying a painful and frustrating negation of our creative production.
Some idiot can copy my whole website merely by using cut and paste and a crappy HTML editor. I did 1000s of hours of research in libraries and on the web, 100s of hours of calligraphy (which I taught myself!), and 100s of hours of hand HTML coding to create my site. It takes 10 minutes to copy it. I've seen it done, more than once. Fuck that. I would feel the same if I had published my original music compositions - I write music but have never taken it as seriously as I take my writing. So I say no don't copy my work without asking me. If you're asking am I upset that punters are setting the value of my life's work at zero? Yes. I am upset by that. If the value is zero then why would I bother? I wouldn't. I'm not saying the value is a ton of gold. But it has value to me, and if you just take it without asking then that hurts me. On the other hand if you make even the slightest concession that my work has value, and that you appreciate my effort, then I will usually give it to you for free. Except in the case of my book, which represents a condensation of many years of work and I think is worth paying for. In my mind no one who has not published a book or some music or sold a painting should be part of the decision making process about intellectual property - one should have to show that one has some intellectual property in order to be invited to that table. I doubt I'd make it, except for my peer reviewed publications.
Now, whatever the legal status of my request, whatever you make of my opinion on the subject or my qualification to have an opinion, if you are a Buddhist practitioner then you are obligated not to copy my work. Whether this has wider implications I leave to the lawyers, but for practising Buddhists the issue is not grey. You don't take the not given. Copying files is taking the not given. So don't do it. This is quite simple and easy to understand I think.
Far too much of this discussion is about the "right" of people who's only talent is to use ctrl-c to acquire and accumulate files. Why are Buddhists even participating in this discussion? We should be smugly sitting on the sidelines being above all this acquisitiveness and greed - even if it is bullshit in our particular case (i.e. if we are faking it).
If our main concern is making sure that no one gets in the way of us getting what we want, then we're already halfway to hell. It's not Buddhism as I understand it.
I did. It seems I'm not getting my point across, though. But I'll try again.
Suppose you met someone who said "Gay sex is clearly an abuse of sexuality. Therefore, to live a Buddhist life, a gay person must stay celibate. No gray area!" :pout: :stamp: Rather blinkered, no?
Your contention is analogous. Taking, giving, and theft imply an object that can be taken, given, or withheld. You're taking as given that intellectual property constitutes such an object, just like my hypothetical homophobe is taking as given that gay sex = abuse of sexuality.
If you do not accept those contentions, neither of the implications hold. I maintain that the contention that intellectual property is analogous to physical property is highly debatable.
So the only thing I'm disputing here is your blanket claim that "there is no gray area." There is, and you would do well to educate yourself about the debate regarding the ethics of intellectual property.
You're a competent scholar and will certainly have no trouble doing so, should you decide to do it, so I won't patronize you by pasting in links.
"I suspect that most people who argue for file sharing to be legal and moral are not people who are creators. They have everything to gain, and nothing to lose."
Oh, Jayarava, Jayarava, how wrong you are. You're really out of your depth on this one, and just digging yourself a deeper hole. Please stop now and do a little basic reading before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Ever heard of Linux? Open source software? The Internet pretty much runs on it. These are massive artifacts, every bit as impressive in their way as the collected works of Shakespeare, or, hey, Nagarjuna if you're so inclined. That whole movement was kicked off by a guy who believes that the notion of intellectual property itself is analogous to theft; that writing copyrighted software should be a crime. They're the intellectual foundation for the Pirate Party movements just beginning to break into the political mainstream.
And if they're not creators, who are?
As to other forms of creativity, do a Google search for Creative Commons. You'll find a massive load of stuff, again created by people who do not believe in imaginary property.
Jayarava, did you censor my 3-point comment or did it not make it through blogspot? One of my three points was the same as Gambhiradaka and Petteri. So it looks like at least three of us have "lost sight of what you are saying". That seems like a pattern of misunderstanding, though.
Nonetheless, I hear your ire. This is very personal to you, it seems speaking theoretically about the issue is difficult.
Oh, and, one more thing, in case you were wondering -- I am a creator, both professionally (I write software) and as an avocation (photography, writing)... and I never pirate. Why not? Because if I did, it would make it that much easier for people like you to dismiss anything I said on the subject as feeble attempts to rationalize my behavior.
And there are lots like me. Not all of us are Anonymous, but we are legion.
As happens a lot in internet conversations this tends to develop into a 'flame war'.
Perhaps it is best to agree to disagree.
Experience shows that the longer these conversations develop the tougher the emails become, which eventually serves no one.
Let us not forget that this is all a game played by oneness.
Namaste.
I'm struggling to keep up with this discussion and I have other things I'd like to do. But no Sabio I have not censored any posts - I'm trying to have a life! I moderate all comments and they only appear when I have time to publish them.
It seems to me that side issues threaten to swamp any discussion about the main point. It does not surprise me that Buddhists want to avoid the issue and the implications of the second precept, but it does exhaust me.
Petteri. you're so busy telling me I'm wrong, that I'm entirely convinced that you are not listening at all. Indeed so far you have completely failed to engage with the main point of this blog post or my comments and attacked me on the basis of your different opinion about something peripheral. If my opinion has no value to you then you are reading the wrong blog and I really suggest you consider why you are bothering to attack me.
From now on I will limit myself to discussing the issue of taking the not given, and I will ask you all to do the same. I only have so much time and energy. If you don't like my opinions about intellectual property then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And considering that it does seem to have passed most of you by, the man topic here is: adinnādāna - not taking the not-given.
And that's it for today. I'm going to do other things until sunday or monday when I'll see if anyone is actually wanting to discuss the main point - if not then I'm moving on to thinking about next week's post which is on credulity.
Now, I need my lunch and a cup of tea.
Best wishes
Jayarava
I am addressing your point of "taking that which is not given." I am claiming that when it comes to intellectual property, it is entirely reasonable to contend that there is no "that" to take or give. I don't expect to convert you to that position; however, I do hope that you have the intellectual integrity to admit that it is a debatable point—and it is relevant to the discussion.
The Precepts do not mean "never do anything someone else doesn't want," you know. I hear some monks squirreled away sutras from their monasteries, made copies, and hid them, when the Emperor of China wanted to destroy them. Was that "taking that which is not given" too, hmm?
As to your bit about greed, what is this attitude of MY blog! MY research! MINE! MINE! MINE! of yours again, if not greed?
What about the way you're dismissing people who disagree with you on this notion as "Ctrl-C'ers" and "not creators" and so on and so forth? How would you relate this to the precept about Right Speech?
As to whether I'm reading the right blog, I'm pretty sure I am. I read most of your posts, and find most them highly interesting. I wish you'd stick to that, or perhaps show a little humility when venturing into areas outside your area of expertiese.
I just rarely comment, because most of the time that I have, it's taken a wrong track pretty quickly, and I try to avoid fights that aren't worth fighting.
This one worth fighting, though.
It matters. It's about an ethical principle that's of paramount importance to anyone who deals in creating something copyable. I will not shut up about it when someone goes :pout: :stamp: piracy is theft.
It's your blog, natch—and should you state unequivocally instead of with a passive-aggressive "suggestion" that I'm not welcome to comment, I will honor that request. Or, of course, you can just bin my comments; nothing wrong with that either.
Saw an interesting tidbit of hinting of nuances that early Buddhists had as they wrestled with this precept:
From An Intro to Buddhist Ethics by Peter Harvey (pg 70):
"Theft is seen as worse according to the value of what is stolen, but also according to the virtue of the person stolen from."
From Buddhaghosa's commentary (#98 on Dhamma-sangani.
Dear Petteri
No, you are not addressing the issue of taking the not-given. You keep trying to discuss the topic of ownership. And now you appear to want to discuss my moral character!
Let's take a step back. Buddhist ethics is not about how the other guy acts. It's not a critique of the idea of ownership or property. Indeed all of the traditional Buddhist discourses acknowledge ownership as a valid concept. Other people owning property is fine. If they own a lot of property that's their problem, their karma. Your critique of ownership (kind of Marxist in flavour) is neither here nor there. Do you see this distinction?
Buddhist ethics is about how *I* relate to the other guy. How he relates to me is the subject of forbearance. Forbearance is what makes me take a couple of days to allow my reaction to your attacks on me to cool down before responding. It's a different perfection from śīla. Do you see?
If the other guy possesses something then you can't take it unless it is given. That is the spirit of the precept. If you have undertaken the precept (I presume you have?) then taking things against people's will is not in the spirit of the precept. That is the end of the story.
You are claiming that there is no such thing as intellectual property. And you are arguing that you can take my idea against my will, and that this will be OK. But it's not OK to me. The "against my will" part means that you can only do what you suggest by doing a violence to me. So it is not in keeping with the precepts. If I do violence in order to get my way, there are always painful consequences. That's what the precept is about.
Now the rest of your last message descends into attacks on me personally which is very disappointing. Such comments are extremely unwelcome. I publish them only with great reluctance, and because I know you've followed the blog for a while now.
If your pattern of involvement is to become embroiled in conflict then you need to think about that, because I notice that other people manage to disagree with me and we don't fall out. It's usually because those people respect my point of view, even when they disagree with it, and they stick to talking about the ideas. I try to do the same. You reap what you sow.
What I want to see here is a mature debate about ideas. I spend a lot of time and energy to come up with these posts and I will defend my position to the best of my ability. Conjecture and refutation is the way knowledge progresses. Sometimes I will critique other people's views, but I make every effort to not attack people personally.
If you can't discuss the idea without getting upset then stay out of the discussion, it doesn't help to have all this personal shit flying around.
And yes, it is my blog.
Very best wishes
Jayarava
Hi Sabio
Buddhaghosa wasn't an "early Buddhist". He probably lived in the 5th century common era (about 900 years post-paribbāna), and his worldview appears to be that of 5th C Sri Lanka. He can be helpful in interpreting the grammar of Pāli passages but not usually in interpreting early Buddhist thinking. Indeed his commentaries are often quite misleading.
However the little snippet from Harvey is interesting because it demonstrates that people have a hard time operating from principles and often almost demand rules and regulations instead. There is a constant battle with formalism in Buddhism, and regular renewals of the spirit from time to time. In a sense the extant Vinayas record the loss on this battle against formalism - the descent into mere rule following without understanding the principles behind the rules.
It's partly why I write these very conservative posts on the precepts. It's to try to get to the principle and state it loud and clear. How that works out in people's lives will be another matter, but if we understand the principle we will at least have a moral compass.
The reactivity I see in these cases often seems to stem from thinking in terms of rules instead of principles.
Regards
Jayarava
Hi Roeland
Actually I tend to pour cold water on flame wars in the comments of my blogs. I don't enjoy it. I used to indulge in it elsewhere, and I realised that I had not changed a single mind.
So my blog is partly an attempt at something more considered that might make people (and me) think and respond with thoughtfulness and to focus on the ideas. I moderate all comments, and just quietly bin the most outrageous contributions.
I do not believe that this is a game played by oneness - I'm not sure that even makes sense. But we are all human beings, and we are probably all following scripts which we think will make us happy but in reality won't. Compassion is the order of the day.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Dear Jayarava,
thanks for this insightful post and most of all for the interesting discussion it produced (although I must admit that I did not read all rejoinders).
Not being a Buddhist myself, I appreciate the fact that you found a clear way to respond to "anti-capitalist" arguments (no matter what your personal ethics or the law says, the person X did not want you to take Y, hence you should not do it). This is so because I am often confronted with this kind of arguments, for instance on the part of students who ask me to upload all the texts I will be referring to in a class.
However, I also think that, in a historical perspective, the concept of "author" is declining. We tend to go back to the Middle Age (absit iniuria verbis) stance of floating texts which were free to be used by everyone. Such is the case of Wikipedia. Hence, many might be blamed for lack of insight and of awareness of what they are doing (which is very bad) rather than for deliberately committing theft.
Last, personally I upload drafts of whatever I write (with permission of the publisher in case of published material). I think it is good for knowledge to circulate and I firmly believe that ideas only improve if they are exchanged. I cannot understand authors who try to protect their writings and discoveries and to keep them secret until they have the publisher's seal on them. But, of course, I see no point in trying to "steal" these ideas while they are not looking at me (exactly because I suspect that lonely ideas are dull).
Hi Elisa,
Thanks for that! Yes I think the notion of the "author" has been under attack in recent years. Since Post-modernism people have been keen to deny the author or the text a privileged place. And Marxists, of course, want to take away all of our property, but especially our intellectual property it seems. These are ideological positions which give weight to certain facts over other facts. Neuroscientists and advertising executives tell us that the valuing of facts is a function of emotion, not reason. We decide amongst facts by how we feel about them.
I think the nihilism which underlies the denial of value in authoring and authorship is a plague that started in post-war French academies, and has spread to the zombie internet generation. Nihilism is not a good thing.
As a writer I claim to author things, and 'author' comes ultimately from the Latin augere 'to augment'. As a human being I want other people to acknowledge and appreciate me. So I write in the hope of making a contribution to the progress of knowledge as a collective good, and in the hope that my contribution is valued. This contributes to my life having a sense of meaning and purpose. It's why I'm reluctant to join in the bonfire of texts and authors.
A simple acknowledgement is usually enough to delight me. Don't pay me, I have enough money, but give me a thrill by citing me! :-)
It is interesting that some of the copyright debate is being driven by published authors. Published authors have an authority that others do not. Funny that. What happens when there are no more authorities? Utopia? I doubt it. Chaos and dystopia are more likely on past experience of the humans.
I'm all for sharing knowledge. And if it is freely given I am happy to receive it. If not, then I look for another option, or sometimes I go without.
"Data is not facts.
Facts are not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not truth.
Truth is not wisdom."
This wisdom is in danger of being lost.
Thanks Elisa. You always raise interesting issues and make me think more about my opinions! I really appreciate it.
Ciao
Jayarava
Thanx for the corrective information on Buddhaghosa. I have found the comments of all contributors here to be of value.
Hey Sabio
One of the things I like about you is that you are a good sport! I'm appreciating your contributions here and elsewhere.
Cheers
Jayarava
This whole discussion is fraught with the tenuous issue of ownership. Like Petteri, I am a producer (mainly writing, but also a bit of photography), who also chooses to not deliberately pirate material. In large part, I'm not pirating because I simply have no need for more. I feel upholding the precepts in a larger sense is intimately tied to not taking more than is necessary.
On the other hand, back to the ownership issue, this whole discussion seems built on middle class, capitalist notions of what constitutes "property." For example, there seems to be a failure to account for the systemic forms of theft that deprive millions of people around the world of access to the basics, including a decent education and the materials needed to develop that.
When it comes to Buddha Torrents, it's very clear that a minority percentage of users there are people who don't have the financial means to purchase much of anything available there. And this is true of music and movie downloaders as well. I'm not interested in making some passionate defense here, but more to open up the issues being considered to class considerations.
On a wholly different note, there's an entirely ungenerous spirit behind a lot of intellectual property law. And I tend to be someone who believes that we artists and writers would be better off if we didn't have to endlessly produce "products" in order to make a "livelihood."
Nothing "I" create is done in a vacuum, nor do I really own any of it in an ultimate sense. So, I'm less interested in protecting what I make, than I am in discovering how we might make it easier for artists and writers to sustain their lives, and share their talents more widely.
Hi Nathan
This discussion is not affected by the issue of ownership. I'm confident that I have got this across because Elisa has grasped both the concept and the usefulness of it as you can see above. All you need to know about ownership is that this thing you seek to acquire is not yours. If it is not yours is it given? If not then don't take it. At present some intellectual property is given, some is given with strings attached (I ask you to cite me, but you can copy these words), and some is not given. The second precept simply asks you to respect this.
So this awful post modern denial of the concept of ownership is a red-herring.
I'm not sure that anything is clear about the users of Buddha Torrents - perhaps you have a source of information about the users that I do not? But again what does it matter when there is a huge amount of quality material available for free? The accessibility argument is null here because free alternatives are, and always have been. If you can afford a computer and broadband - how poor can you be anyway?
On the ungenerous spirit I think you are blaming the victims. One of the original instigators was Charles Dickens who was in favour because people were ripping him off. This is obviously still the case. But even if Copyright Law is ungenerous it doesn't really make any difference. You might campaign against it quite legitimately, but in the mean time Buddhist ethics should not be used to judge the behaviour of other people. The precepts are training principles that you take on in order to modify your own character, not to beat up other people.
I am happy that you don't feel you have to grasp to much what you make. Presumably what you can sell makes you enough money, or you have another source of income. That is admirable. What I don't think is admirable, on principle, is that you would expect other people to live by your standards and rules.
Thanks for sharing, and being more polite about it that some, but I don't think you're grasped the principle here.
I am mildly confused here. Let's assume I talk about work with a colleague. I might offer my insight on a particular topic (I work in science). After the discussion my colleague goes and works on the topic we discussed in a way that I think makes use of my insight.
1) did my colleague take what was not given? No mention was made on whether I was giving or withholding the ownership of my insight. I did 'share' in in the sense I did speak it out loud, and at least one person was there to hear and understand. Does this constitute 'giving'? what does constitute giving for stuff that is not an object?
2) 'my insight' might in fact be as common as rain in Scotland. I did not check if anyone independently came to the same conclusions. I did do my thinking, but nobody stops anyone else to come to the same conclusions all by themselves. In such conditions, i.e. just being one of the possible people independently having the insight, do I have any ownership of my insight in the first place?
Although you point out that the precepts are training principles we each take on, you seem to be quite frequently pointing the finger at the behavior of others here, sir.
As far as me not understanding your post, it's more that we disagree on the way the precepts function, and also how they may be applied. I'm fine if you think that what I have written here is obtuse, but I don't think this is about a lack of understanding the concept.
It seems that some people are taking my comments above as personal criticism and getting upset - to the point where their responses are mean and not publishable. I'm also getting praise for this post. Praise and blame being two of the worldly winds. Such is life.
A couple of people have accused me of hypocrisy because I have a definite opinion on how the second precept should ideally be understood. I am disagreeing with those who seem confused about the issues and pointing out what they are confused about. I'm not making a moral judgement in saying that I think you are confused. I just think that what you are writing in response to me is confused. It's an intellectual judgement not a moral judgement.
If you think you can show me why my view is wrong, then please do so. But to simply tell me I'm wrong and you are right is not a discussion I'm interested in having. You have to raise your game and tell me *why* you think I'm wrong.
In my opinion if you resort to sarcasm then you've already lost the argument, but lack the grace to admit it. I understand that losing an argument can be painful, especially when one has a cherished view. But consider that losing an argument doesn't mean you are wrong, you just need to find a better way to articulate your thoughts. Stop pouting. It's unseemly in adults.
We're having a discussion about the principles behind the second precept. So far I'm the only one enunciating a clear principial approach to the second precept. If you have a better view then let's hear it. Really.
Dear Frederico,
I think this example is the wrong way around. Let's rephrase it in terms of you and your moral decision making process. The precepts are your personal undertaking (this is explicit in the wording!).
Let's say you take an idea discussed with a colleague, develop it, and use it to publish a paper. Do you acknowledge the source of the idea? Have you deprived your colleague of the opportunity of publishing their work? Do you do this consciously? How do you feel when you next see the colleague - relaxed or anxious? How does the experience feel to you? Does it change the way you relate to your colleague? Has is affected their willingness to trust you.
Rather than seeking moral absolutes, which is what you are doing - though quite subtly - you need to examine your experience and the state of your relationship with that person.
If there has been a negative effect then one must consider that one has not acted ethically. And at that point some self-examination is required. Usually if you lack clarity then it helps to discuss it with someone who both knows you well and shares your values. Once you are clear about your motivations and how they played out, then you don't really need anyone to tell you who owned what or whether what you did was ethical or not. You know by how comfortable you are in your own skin with it. This is assuming that you are a neuro-typical person capable of experiencing and expressing empathy of course.
All of the responsibility rests on you. It is weighty which is why so many of us want rules to take the strain, and authority figures to blame (which is what happens to me when I write something conservative about ethics!)
Best Wishes
Jayarava
I am not sure if your last post is directed to me -- I was neither praising nor blaming, and I doubt anything I say could constitute sarcasm.
If I copy one of your books without permission I am clearly wrong. I believe this independent of copyright laws, because the work of the author should be respected. Having said that, there are plenty of situation that need clarification.
If I write a book and give *you* permission to copy it, do I automatically give you permission to let a third party copy your copy of my book?
Fair use and 'not taking what is not given' also seems to need deeper explanation. I could write a book that is a review and critique of the latest ideas on whatever topic. I'd have ample 'legal' rights to refer to, and to cite, other people's work, without ever asking their opinion on the merit. I would also be able to make money this way. Is this legal fair use within the 'not taking what is not given'?
And finally, let's assume I gave you a statue of the buddha. Could I ask you to give it back? Could you legitimately refuse? would it make a difference if, instead of an object, I 'gave' you an insight on a specific topic you are working on? Could I legitimately stop you from using it? If other people can independently get to the same insight, could I ever assume it is mine to own and to give in the first place?
Dear Nathan
I find people only call me "Sir" when they are waiters or when they intend deliberate disrespect. You're not a waiter are you?
"Although you point out that the precepts are training principles we each take on, you seem to be quite frequently pointing the finger at the behavior of others here, sir."
What I am doing is stating my opinion about the second precept. I may occasionally do so in general terms. I do think that illegal downloads breach the precept both literally and in spirit. But I have not pointed my finger at any individual and said "you are a bad person". There is quite a big difference between stating my belief that a principle holds generally, and criticising people who disagree with me. I'm only doing the former. It is obvious however that you think the shoe fits...
As far as me not understanding your post, it's more that we disagree on the way the precepts function, and also how they may be applied.
I can only go on the evidence that you supply Nathan. The onus is on you to show that you do understand, and so far you've just brushed my views aside in a peremptory manner and tried to have a discussion about something else. So far as I can see you're not even talking about taking the not-given yet, so it's hard for me to tell what your view on it is.
I'm fine if you think that what I have written here is obtuse, but I don't think this is about a lack of understanding the concept.
I don't think what you're writing is obtuse, I think it's patronising, confused and irrelevant. If you understand the concept I am talking about you have yet to show it.
The strength of my ethical hermeneutic is clear when considering the problem posed by Fredarico above. It shows that focusing on the issue of ownership is not very helpful. It's the taking that is problematic, not the owning! If what you take is taken through greed or hatred, then it fouls up your relationships with other people, and fouls up your mind.
Take a look at the role of a clear conscience in the Buddhist life in AN 10.2 which I commented on in my blog Progress is Natural. Ethics is about being free from remorse because that is the condition for joy (pamojja) and as Ayya Khema says without pamojja meditation is not possible.
What you have consistently been talking about is ways to justify behaviour. That is not part of the program of Buddhism as I understand it. And the way to prove me wrong is rise above calling me an arsehole - however subtly - and come up with a better explanation of the dynamics of ethical behaviour and how it impacts on the practitioner.
Regards
Jayarava
Fredarico
You are not the only person sending in comments about this blog, and if you look through the comments you'll see what I'm responding to.
I wrote a personal response to your comment which I thought addressed the queries you raised. In fact it was helpful to me because it gave me a chance to demonstrate how my approach works in practice. Before we get too carried away could you indicate that you have seen and read my response to you.
Thanks
Jayarava
I suspect we were both writing at the same time when you replied to my first post.
I am not seeking moral absolute in the least. In fact I would understand from your reply that, unless 'do not take what is not given' is applied to (a) an object or (b) anything you are explicitly not allowed to copy (for instance 'please do not make a copy of this statue'), it is all a grey area. I would agree with that.
For copyrighted work sold for profit, copying takes away the profit, hence it is a clear cut 'taking away'.
For instances where copying is not taking any profit (or any possible benefit) away, it just happens to be objectionable to the person who has the object or idea that is being copied, I think that the equivalence of 'copying' with 'taking' is very much open for discussion.
Fredarico
I have never said that all copying is taking the not-given. Clearly there are many examples of copying that is not only allowed by welcome. Linux is a fine example that someone else raised earlier. It is expected that Linux will be copied and passed around, and if it isn't then it doesn't really work. It's not really a grey area since it is explicitly given. There no reason that copying it will cause you to experience remorse.
But yes, where someone has explicitly said "do not copy this without permission or payment" then there is no grey area. This is the case is the vast majority of commercially produced music and software. I've said all I feel I need to say about this in the post itself.
I think your example was a good one, even though it needed rephrasing, and I would be interested to see how people who are so vehemently against what I'm saying would deal with it in a way that made it relevant to Buddhist practice.
I think one of the problems that makes this difficult to think about is that the things being acquired at not related back to human experience - a file is almost an abstract concept, and we don't seem to be able to relate it back to the way the person or people who made it feet about it. So we cannot empathise with them. Without empathy the ethical situation is unclear - because there seems to be no consequence to the act. We're alienated from the people from whom we are taking. So there may in fact be little in the way of emotional fall out - unlike stealing an idea from a colleague which would affect your relationships.
Ethics is demanding under these circumstances because it asks us to imagine a relationship with that person or people that we will never meet, and who might never know that we've stolen from them. If no one knows then how can it be wrong? This is why I insist that we must look at our own side of the transaction, and the effects of taking the not-given on us. We usually know when we are doing it, and I suggest that Buddhists need to be honest with themselves in order to make progress. Where it is not known by some people, then I think there is some obligation to educate people about the consequences of their actions. Acting unskilfully mutilates the character of the person. But then "smoking kills" and look at how many people know this to be true and choose to continue!
Regards
Jayarava
Quite a discussion this has stirred up. Here's an attempt to tackle the "pattern of misunderstanding" Sabio referred to. I think there are at least two things where the discussion's gone partially off track.
1: The concepts of Giving and Taking:
Yes, the concept of property has changed, and yes, even the concept of intellectual property has probably changed. Some might think that even the concept of "taking" needs to be examined more closely. Some have said that copying is not taking, because it doesn't "take away" the property from its owner. However, in my book I don't think "taking" has ever inevitably meant that: taking a swig of water from a river for example hardly reduces the water in the stream. In the digital world it's even less so. Heck, you can even say that you "take a copy".
In other words I don't think "taking" needs a redefinition for the digital age. And this of course also applies to "giving": giving doesn't mean the physical act of handing something over, but rather letting someone have something. Accordingly, there is such a thing as giving and taking also in the digital world.
2: What's the gray area we're talking about?
I actually see three levels of concepts handled here.
A) the basic concept of not taking what's not intentionally put out there to be taken.
B) the concept of what actually can be considered an intellectual property, and especially who owns what.
C) the concept of where taking something against the intellectual property rights can be seen as justifiable or morally right.
I think A doesn't have a gray area, but B and C do. So in a way some arguments here might be straw men of sorts: tackling A by referring to B and C.
If you just pick the sentence "Copying is theft" it is of course a false statement, as copying can be deliberately allowed. But I think Jayarava's point was meant to be that of the level A) there. So, to examples:
A) Linux for example is given. Some things aren't.
B) How do ideas measure up in this? What was taken against the owner's will, what was not? Who actually got the idea? Was it owned by someone? It is a gray area and there are no absolute truths, but
common sense will do a lot for example in a case like what Federico wrote there. And that's why there's a (ridiculously?) huge amount of lawyer business going around these matters.
C) Now this is of course a huge gray area. If someone is already making millions with his/her music, is it wrong to "take" the music, since it's not away from anyone else? Is it bad to take something from someone who himself has got what he has through questionable means (dictatorship, fraud, crime etc.)? This is of course a gray area as well, but it has actually very little to do with the question whether the thing taken was physical or intellectual.
Hi Johannes
I think you've done a good job of thinking clearly about the issue, and setting out the different positions. It's a bit of relief to have a such a thoughtful contribution.
As you say I'm taking a principial approach. I'm not that interested in arguing about ownership in the abstract because I think it's more important for the practical purposes to look at the other end of the problem. Using metaphysical arguments about the notion of ownership to justify my acquisitiveness is not in the spirit of the Buddha's morality.
There were issues of intellectual property in the Buddha's day because many people went around giving oral teachings. For the Brahmins who passed on the Upaniṣads it was important that the ideas stayed within a closed circle of people - mainly males of brāhmaṇa descent who learned directly from a teacher. The early Upaniṣads make it clear that these ideas were not public property and not to be discussed in public.
The Buddha also had problems with distorted versions of his teaching which had to be corrected.
Anyway I think what happens towards the end of your comment is that you move away from the pragmatic concerns of the individual practitioner trying to prepare their mind for meditation, and towards a system of morality with broader (universal?) application.
cont...
...cont
The big problem I see with this discussion of ownership is that people use a loophole to justify taking the not given. So people have, for instance, copied my mantra website and presented it as their own work. When I ask them to desist they have abused me and cite this idea that though I spent 1000's of hours in learning the skills involved and 100's of hours creating the specific content and presenting it, that I have no say in other person copying it. They argue that I in no way 'own' my work and cannot ask them not to take it without asking. Secondly, and this is definitely Buddhists in each case, they abuse me for being materialistic.
Now what has happened in these cases is that these people are trying to divert attention away from their actions, trying to justify their unethical action by making me seem unethical. They never have to examine their own conscience because they can rationalise their "rightness" in terms of my "wrongness". If I turn that around and consider the effect that kind of rationalisation has on my mind I cannot help but think that it must have a deleterious effect on me to behave that way. Pragmatically I see it as extremely unhelpful.
An idea is quite nebulous, but once an idea has taken form in a work of some sort I think the situation has changed.
Obviously the reason that lawyers make a lot of money out of copyright is that people are cunning in their attempts to get something for nothing. The attitude of many people seems to be that they are entitled to take what they can get. We saw this in the parliamentary expenses scandal, the credit crunch and subsequent financial crisis, and in the recent rioting in London. It's happening at all levels of society.
The idea of getting something for little or no effort, and little or no cost is attractive for obvious reasons. But the ease of attaining something is extrapolated to the idea that if something is easy to copy then it has no value. This is deeply philosophically problematic. If my skill and effort are of no value then why is the result attractive enough to take and re-present as your own work?
The value of a trading good must be a negotiation between buyer and seller. But if the buyer refuses to negotiate, denies that the very idea of ownership even applies, and blames the seller for even attempting to place a value on their creation then the transaction becomes a one sided and I would say unethical as well as unfair.
Ultimately this is about individual sovereignty. Because if my idea are not 'mine' then I have no sovereignty. If my ideas are not mine and you can take them with impunity, then what about my memories, or my identity. What about my body. The Buddhist analysis taken to the extreme says this body is not really mine. So could you come and take, say, my organs without asking me? This does happen in India. Or could you take my cells without asking and grow a clone of me and then say that the clone was legally me and entitled to half my resources?
The can of worms that this opens up is far worse than the the people who want to pirate software and music with impunity imagine. However this moral position does not prevent creative people giving their work away if they want to. But just because some people want to do this, doesn't mean that we must all value our work at zero.
I understand the attractiveness of philosophy. Thinking about these complex issues can be entertaining, and obviously provokes a lot of emotions (which is an end in itself these days). But in terms of Buddhist practice it's far more important to focus on how I am relating to other people, rather than on abstracts and metaphysics. My concerns are largely pragmatic for pragmatic reasons.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
The ideas behind "intellectual property" are much more complex actually than you make them out to be, and I write that as a guy with more than a few patents.
Some of the best Buddhist material is actually free; you probably know that so a big part of this is actually a tempest in a teapot. A large amount of the "copyrighted" Buddhist material is pretty pale in comparison to the source material. Not that any of that mitigates what might be copyright infringement; it doesn't. But it's hardly something that's particularly important to me, for that reason.
Regarding "fair use," it's a legal concept, and frankly neither you nor I are competent to pronounce on what exactly is and isn't fair use in all cases, and I too have had entire posts from my blog lifted without attribution, which is in the "beyond the pale" area of intellectual property theft. On questions like "what is fair use" it's best to actually consult an attorney.
But I also don't care that much that my posts have been lifted without attribution; they could stand re-writing anyway, often.
One other point I'll make: it is undeniable that corporations have in recent years abused copyright law, and have attempted to restrict a consumer's right of use of a work for personal use in ways that are antithetical to the intent of copyright law. Disney's wish is to trademark Mickey Mouse's image in perpetuity - this is ridiculous from the standpoint of the original intent of copyright law as informed by events such as the Protestant Reformation and the dissemination of the bible. (I presume you can draw a line between the events.) If "DRM" means anything to you, you also know that's another example. In yet another example of corporations gone wild over copyright law, the Pope issued an edict a couple of years back claiming all rights to his image, with the intent that he could protect it from satire and ridicule!
I try to keep away from areas that are beyond the pale in my own use of copyright issues, for the simple reason that a) I'm no lawyer, and b) it's best not to mess with them unless being compensated as a consultant or expert witness for $200/hour, because otherwise it can hit pretty hard in the pocketbook.
No recourse to Buddhist texts is needed here; it's just common sense.
"Obviously the reason that lawyers make a lot of money out of copyright is that people are cunning in their attempts to get something for nothing."
That's only one perspective. There is also an opposite reason: to define what in fact is there for the taking. In principle I agree with your precept of not taking the not-given, but in practice for the society to work in an optimal fashion, there need to be rules for what has to be free for the taking - this applies especially to intellectual property, but in some cases also physical property, like land. Some might argue that this is exactly what makes the whole precept of not taking the not-given a gray area, but I prefer looking at this like that that society defines, what needs to be given, and those things are there for the taking. As a simple example, society needs to take some of your money for taxes, even though you don't want to give it away.
"But the ease of attaining something is extrapolated to the idea that if something is easy to copy then it has no value. This is deeply philosophically problematic. If my skill and effort are of no value then why is the result attractive enough to take and re-present as your own work?
I think you're making a quite irrational conclusion there. Giving something away for free doesn't mean that it's of no value. The value can be much more to others, and one can take value in knowing that others find that something useful. The value can also be exponentially bigger as a common good. And last but not least, unless there is an intrinsic value in rationing or withholding that special something, giving that value available to others doesn't take that value away from the creator. If someone represents your work as their own, that's wrong, but I think you are making weird generalizations here (which is especially obvious in that simplified "Copying is theft." statement).
"Ultimately this is about individual sovereignty. Because if my idea are not 'mine' then I have no sovereignty. If my ideas are not mine and you can take them with impunity, then what about my memories, or my identity. What about my body. The Buddhist analysis taken to the extreme says this body is not really mine. So could you come and take, say, my organs without asking me? This does happen in India. Or could you take my cells without asking and grow a clone of me and then say that the clone was legally me and entitled to half my resources?"
The physical integrity part there is a bit offtopic, since we're basically talking about copying, not removing the property from somone. The clone idea, however, is an excellent input to this discussion. I don't think there is any reason to state that the clone would have rights to your things, since he would be an entirely different entity, so that part of the question is in my opinion futile. But the mere concept of someone being allowed to clone another person without specific permission is a concrete hit to the core of this entire discussion: if all knowledge and information would be free for the taking, then someone's DNA would be no exception. That would seriously compromise a person's identity, and I don't think there are a lot of people in the world who would like that to happen.
Hi Mumon
Thanks for your contribution. However I'm not interested in copyright. I'm interested in acquisitiveness as a way of shoring up ego, and the negating of another persons ego, will or being in the process - and the problems it causes.
Please no more contributions on the subject of copyright.
Jayarava
Hi Johannes
I think how a Buddhist practices ethics and how we turn Buddhist ethics into a viable way to run a society are two entirely different topics. Clearly I am only interested in and writing about the former.
I'm not making an irrational argument I'm making an reductio ad absurdum argument - a method by which I point out that the other persons views lead to absurd conclusions.
A new day tomorrow and a new topic.
I'm not making an irrational argument I'm making an reductio ad absurdum argument - a method by which I point out that the other persons views lead to absurd conclusions.
And my point was to say that those views of other people you are referring to do not lead to those absurd conclusions. Freedom of copying content does not mean that that particular content wouldn't have value.
My my, just caught this one - what a storm! I think from the distributors end Linux is a fascinating example. Copying is enshrined as a right and must be passed on as a right (Google copyleft for more info). Attribution however is still preserved - i.e. no passing off someone else's work as your own. It really is a vision of a different basis for society, but very few fans would support copying software that forbade those freedoms - hence it upholds Jayarava's point of view to some extent.
There seems to be an argument about terminology going on with copying is/isn't theft. Copying is not the same as taking. That doesn't make it OK, but to insist that copying a CD is the same as taking one from a store is mad. I would still see it myself as not a good thing to do but to fail to distinguish the separate arguments for each case could be seen as analogous to the grossly overblown anti drugs education I had as a nipper which ignored the subtleties of the debate and so hugely undermined the message.
I do think we do have to ask questions about ownership. I can't remember the details, but there was a south American nation that sold it's water supply to a big US company. It was made illegal to collect rainwater so that all water had to be purchased from the company. There was an uprising in the end and the company left with nothing. Was Ambedkar taking the not given at the water tank agitation?
Still, in those last examples what the response of the public tried to do was change the rules. Most file sharers are not lobbying to bring down copyright abuse, they are not challenging the system, they are ignoring it. We should actively engage to prevent IP abuses like patent trolls, fair usage prevention, over-extension of copyright terms, and unfairness (the Beatles still earn for Sgt Peppers, but the guy who designed to cover got paid once). Companies will take all they can get and more, so they need to be reined in. At the same time, taking a copy of something that clearly states when you buy it that the original owner doesn't want you to do that is clearly ethically questionable. If you don't want to live in that world then do for music what the free software movement did for software - go and make some and give it away!
You don't need to publish this, Jayarava, but I wanted to point out a factual error in what you said early on.
You mentioned Cory Doctorow:
"Or you get people like Cory Doctorow who is already successful and it doesn't matter much if he gets no new income."
What you seem to be unaware of is that when Cory started giving his work away, he wasn't successful. As he's actually said in numerous interviews and in essays, people used to say to him, roughly, "Oh, you can only get away with giving this stuff away because you're new and unknown and have nothing to lose." When he became successful (in spite of giving his written work away), they then switched to the argument that you made above.
It can't be both ways. In any case, you made a factual error in that he's not an example of a successful person who then started giving his work away but of one who has always given his work away but been successful either in spite of it or, perhaps (as he argues), partially because he has done so.
Post a Comment