6 ms·

Sorry, but no. If you jump the fence at a concert, or sneak into a movie theater, you are guilty of "Theft of Services". Note that this type of theft does not

Sorry, but no. If you jump the fence at a concert, or sneak into a movie theater, you are guilty of "Theft of Services". Note that this type of theft does not deprive the original owner that resource. If you want to pretend you are not stealing something when you infringe on copyright, that's up to you; I'd suggest that this is an oversimplification of the issue designed to induce unwarranted feelings of innocence One last thing: since when is "Stealing is Wrong" a "western" notion? The Buddhist prohibition on stealing is even more extreme in its condemnation of the type of behavior you are defending.

sandal 16y ago
First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Secondly, while I can't know for sure, I think the 'Stealing is Wrong' mentality is not a statement about whether stealing is good or bad, but how strongly it is stigmatized in the west. So, likening some other unrelated activity (such as copyright infringement) to theft has a powerful mental effect. Finally, if you sneak into a movie theater or jump the fence at a concert, you are actually taking up a seat or space that could have been used by a paying customer. This isn't the same thing as downloading digital goods, in which your use of these goods has no impact on the producer unless it prevented you from purchasing something you otherwise might have. Copyright infringement is not an innocent act, but all acts of infringement are not considered equal. Honestly, I feel like you're the one oversimplifying things.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Umm, no. Some modern Buddhist traditions may treat the precepts as "guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person", but that's a fairly recent innovation. The precepts (including the lay precepts) are described in painful detail in the Pali canon, the Agamas, and some Mahayana Sutras, and although the details of the prohibitions differ somewhat between various traditions, all of them go far beyond "guidelines". Trust me on this one. Second: I ask again-- do you know a non-Western culture where theft is not stigmatized? Finally: taking up space or a seat is not a factor in the legal definition of "theft of services"-- theft of Cable TV holds as well. The salient characteristc (which coincidentally agrees with the Buddhist precept) is "taking that which is not given." I understand that you'd like to divorce copyright infringement from the notion of theft, based on the physical deprivation of goods, but the legal notion of theft is (and as far as I know, has always been) a great deal broader than that, however inconvenient this happens to be to your conscience.
  - sandal 16y ago
    Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.
      - sandal 16y ago
        This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
        michael_dorfman 16y ago
        Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.
forza 16y ago
"you are guilty of 'Theft of Services'" The legal definition is not the same as the literal or figurative meaning of a word, which also may differs from its connotation. Edit: Also while it might be called "theft of service" and considered larceny in US, in Sweden the same act is called "fraudulent behavior" and is a lesser form of fraud.
- varjag 16y ago
  Well it's a two-way street. We could then argue that figurative meaning of "copyright infridgement is stealing" is not the same as it's legal definition, too.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    We could, but then we'd be trying to pin down a precise definition for a concept that is subjective and culturally dependent. Pointless to even try.
gcb 16y ago
Last time I check physical space was a limited resource.
ataggart 16y ago
>If you jump the fence at a concert, or sneak into a movie theater, you are guilty of "Theft of Services". Perhaps, but it unnecessarily introduces a host of vague, subjective issues (to the benefit of the lawyers involved). The actual crime was being on someone else's real property without their consent, as such the correct charge should be "trespassing."
waterhouse 16y ago
Methinks it would be "Trespassing", a subcategory of "Violation of Property Rights", not "Theft of Services".
kbutler 16y ago
"Theft of services" requires obtaining a service without payment. Obtaining digital goods would therefore not qualify. Copyright and copyright infringement are defined in specific sections of law. Any comparison to another area of law (theft, theft of services, piracy, patent or trademark infringement, or homicide) will of necessity be inaccurate. kb
unicornporn 16y ago
"theft" of services does not exist in swedish law though.
sophacles 16y ago
If I jump the fence or sneak into a theater, I take the place of a paying customer. I am stealing the ability to sell the seat, so they are in fact denied the resource. If I copy a song, the original owner still has everything he started with (time, stuff, etc). Also: I never said it was a strictly western notion. I don't know enough about other cultures to make claims. So I qualified my statement to those places where I know it is correct. I appologize for offending you by not making overly broad statements.

sandal 16y ago

First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Secondly, while I can't know for sure, I think the 'Stealing is Wrong' mentality is not a statement about whether stealing is good or bad, but how strongly it is stigmatized in the west. So, likening some other unrelated activity (such as copyright infringement) to theft has a powerful mental effect. Finally, if you sneak into a movie theater or jump the fence at a concert, you are actually taking up a seat or space that could have been used by a paying customer. This isn't the same thing as downloading digital goods, in which your use of these goods has no impact on the producer unless it prevented you from purchasing something you otherwise might have. Copyright infringement is not an innocent act, but all acts of infringement are not considered equal. Honestly, I feel like you're the one oversimplifying things.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Umm, no. Some modern Buddhist traditions may treat the precepts as "guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person", but that's a fairly recent innovation. The precepts (including the lay precepts) are described in painful detail in the Pali canon, the Agamas, and some Mahayana Sutras, and although the details of the prohibitions differ somewhat between various traditions, all of them go far beyond "guidelines". Trust me on this one. Second: I ask again-- do you know a non-Western culture where theft is not stigmatized? Finally: taking up space or a seat is not a factor in the legal definition of "theft of services"-- theft of Cable TV holds as well. The salient characteristc (which coincidentally agrees with the Buddhist precept) is "taking that which is not given." I understand that you'd like to divorce copyright infringement from the notion of theft, based on the physical deprivation of goods, but the legal notion of theft is (and as far as I know, has always been) a great deal broader than that, however inconvenient this happens to be to your conscience.
- sandal 16y ago
  Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.
    - sandal 16y ago
      This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
      - michael_dorfman 16y ago
        Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.

forza 16y ago

"you are guilty of 'Theft of Services'" The legal definition is not the same as the literal or figurative meaning of a word, which also may differs from its connotation. Edit: Also while it might be called "theft of service" and considered larceny in US, in Sweden the same act is called "fraudulent behavior" and is a lesser form of fraud.

varjag 16y ago
Well it's a two-way street. We could then argue that figurative meaning of "copyright infridgement is stealing" is not the same as it's legal definition, too.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  We could, but then we'd be trying to pin down a precise definition for a concept that is subjective and culturally dependent. Pointless to even try.

gcb 16y ago

Last time I check physical space was a limited resource.

ataggart 16y ago

>If you jump the fence at a concert, or sneak into a movie theater, you are guilty of "Theft of Services". Perhaps, but it unnecessarily introduces a host of vague, subjective issues (to the benefit of the lawyers involved). The actual crime was being on someone else's real property without their consent, as such the correct charge should be "trespassing."

waterhouse 16y ago

Methinks it would be "Trespassing", a subcategory of "Violation of Property Rights", not "Theft of Services".

kbutler 16y ago

"Theft of services" requires obtaining a service without payment. Obtaining digital goods would therefore not qualify. Copyright and copyright infringement are defined in specific sections of law. Any comparison to another area of law (theft, theft of services, piracy, patent or trademark infringement, or homicide) will of necessity be inaccurate. kb

unicornporn 16y ago

"theft" of services does not exist in swedish law though.

sophacles 16y ago

If I jump the fence or sneak into a theater, I take the place of a paying customer. I am stealing the ability to sell the seat, so they are in fact denied the resource. If I copy a song, the original owner still has everything he started with (time, stuff, etc). Also: I never said it was a strictly western notion. I don't know enough about other cultures to make claims. So I qualified my statement to those places where I know it is correct. I appologize for offending you by not making overly broad statements.