Is torrenting stuff (such as movies) stealing?

So one of the five Buddhist precepts is a rule to abstain from taking what is not freely given. That's basically stealing. But is illegally downloading movies on internet stealing? I'm not so convinced. Cos think of it, what is stealing? It's taking something that belongs to somebody else without their permission or legal right. But the thing is that "illegal" movies are freely given. Maybe not by people who originally made a movie, but they are by person who is choosing to share now. Now you might say it's still stolen cos person who is now sharing it stole it. But in that case bad karma is on him not you, isn't it? Cos right now he is freely giving that thing. Kinda like eating meat, ya know? We shall not take life, but the very act of eating meat is not killing, it's just eating. Many Buddhists eat meat. Even Buddha himself and his monks ate meat.

Also, did he actually stole it in first place? What he did is copy it. Just like we copy popular hairstyles of celebrities. Doesn't mean we steal their hair, we just copy the style and everything about it. Same goes for torrented movies; it's just copied original, not the original itself. And copying is not by definition stealing, is it?

What do you think?

 

Yet Buddha supposedly ate meat, if we believe in the Pāli Canon, and he did not set rules for his monks that they should not ate meat. Only to not ate meat that is seen, heard or suspected to be specifically killed for them (it's there in Majjhima Nikăya; Sutta 55 – To Jĭvaka) . By using the same line of reasoning here, assuming that the Buddha would have stayed logically consistent, I think it's fair to guess that if he would be alive in this age of technology he would set the similar rules for torrenting?

I brought up meat eating and compare these two because it is the exact same line of reasoning; we have something that's stolen (flesh of a body) and/or brakes the precept but a consumption of it is allowed if not killed specifically for the monk. In that way monk is not directly contributing to killing because killing would have acquired anyways. In case of a market meat still would be sold there, if not for lay Buddhist to buy it then somebody else would. It's not killed for a monk, or even lay person who buys it for a monk, but for public in large. In a case of a pirated movie, using the same reasoning as the Buddha did, if it's not "stolen" specifically for you but for general public then you would not be contributing to stealing hence not braking a precept.

Another way how to look at it of course is the idea that our actions in present moment has past and future implications indirectly. So by that logic buying meat in supermarket is killing just as downloading pirated movies might be stealing. Because we would indirectly encourage killing/stealing by contributing to demand. It is true in an objective sense of course because capitalism is a fact. But I am not so convinced whether it goes against Buddhist morality. Because, again, of the reasons above; the way Buddha thought about and treated meat eating rules.

I'm kinda of a "vegan", because I do not want to indirectly contribute to the demand. But I put that in quotes cos I would still may ate some animal products if it's free and there anyways, without specifically being bought for me. Or without person knowing that I don't ate those things; I would not throw their gift back in their face lol. I would still ate it, be polite and not waste a good food. I would let them know for future though.

The same way I feel about pirating things digitally. I try to get them legally if I can get them and afford them. But sometimes not all things I can find legally or afford. I do feel slightly uneasy about it. But at the same time, like you probably understand from me in this threat, I don't consider it stealing. So it does not goes against my integrity. Neither against my religion, cos the way I interpret the philosophy and reasoning of the Buddha I don't think he would be against it. So really there is nothing that would prevent me from torrenting, apart from obeying copyright laws. But I have very little respect for the legal system and government in general.

Hmm...

Also, this:

Unless we can steal the original file itself physically it's just copying. That's even bigger problem I have about this whole thing. We can discuss the morality of "indirect stealing" or "indirect killing by eating meat" and "indirect precept breaking" and those things might be arguable. But this something that's even less arguable, cos objectively copying is not stealing. That's a fact. So it technically makes it fine to do so. Of course we can bring morality into this and say that in this case copying is wrong too. But the fact still remains that it's not the same thing as the original thing. So is not stealing in that kind of sense. And there is nothing said in Buddhas precepts that prohibits copying or imitation.

I think I made this whole thread cos deep down I wanted for somebody to convince me that it goes against Buddhism, I guess lol. But so far you @plant goodness and your monk videos haven't.

I mean sure there are such thing as compassion that's pretty damn important in Buddhism. And even if eating meat, stealing, raping, etc would be allowed in this religion, if we would practice compassion we probably would end up not doing it anyways. That's the whole reason why I am excluding my animal product consumption by 99.9% in the first place. And that's also probably a reason why torrenting stuff makes me feel slightly uneasy. But I am generally a person that is driven mainly by logic and reason. And compassion is subjective emotion. I need objective rules and philosophies. Not that I need the Buddha to tell me what's right or wrong morally, I have my own brain and judgement. But I don't know, wish somebody would convince me.

Ok... now I'm just ranting at this point... damn...

 

Well that's unfortunate. I very much like to have debates.

O well...

 

So I was Googling things on this and I stumbled on a forum reply by a Theravada Buddhist monk (I have shared some of his content here before cos he is one of my favorite monks I follow and look up to in a way, so maybe there is a reason why I like him; we seem to think alike). Anyhow, gotta admit this tickles my ego quite nicely knowing that a monk agrees with me on this lol.

There's the link to read the whole post of his: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/...ght-material-violate-the-second-pre/2869#2869

Still tho, it doesn't seem to be as simple. It appears to me that this still is very much a subjective matter. But I feel this is an interesting conversation to have nonetheless so I would very much like to discuss this further and hear other people's opinions from this NoFap group on this matter. If somebody else is reading this forum thread feel free to reply and lets keep the conversation moving.

 

We have to think from the heart. If we know in our minds that it is wrong then this is stealing.