From time to time I get emails saying; that this blog that points out the free material available for downloading, is not Buddhist. That it breaks the precepts of taking that which is not given.
Also I have received Copyright violation notices from Production Companies and the threat of lawsuit unless I removed the links. As well as personal requests directly from the filmmaker to remove the link, which I always do. Obviously I have no ethical dilemma with this Blog or I would have ended it a long time ago.
The sharing of Information, IMO, should never come with a price. Especially the Dharma. Buddha wasn't out there selling his books and DVD for $29.95 or T- Shirts. The reality of the system is that the Artist gets very little money back from the publisher of their works and nothing at all from the Bittorent system other than exposure to a wider audience. Am I profiting off this? No. If you re-sell someone else's work without giving back to the creator, thats piracy and in my ethical books wrong.
In any case that's my 2 cents. I could go on and on about the evils of capitalism but I think you get my point.
I hope that this posting can be the place of discussion on this topic and not all over the other posting. If you have anything to say regarding the ethics of downloading please feel free to comment here.
Gassho, Leaf
This Debate also continues here.
PS: The ad's go to supporting this endeavor.
48 comments:
I am 100% with you on this. The Buddha gave the Dharma for free. You put it so perfectly. I get so pissed off when you look at certain popular web sites that sell Dharma recordings from retreats. The lecturers are already giving the speech and recording it then selling it for anything up to 60 dollars (I have seen some for this price). So who is wrong, those spreading the word of the Dharma in one form or another or the ones making profit from it by selling it.
If someone recorded themselves giving a lecture and just wanted the money to cover postage and the CD or a little towards server space then I say "give me your paypal account details".
So keep up the good work.
Anyway, this blog is just highlighting links to torrents. Its not like you have actually uplaoded the torrents yourself.
And for supposed teachers selling their opinions of the Dharma and their perspective on things...meditate on your profit margin. :)
The fact that you are getting under their skin is great. Stick it to the man! I love this blog and I hope it goes on for as long as possible.
Let the filmmakers (or whoever) know that it is very possible that without their films being posted here I would have neither the means nor the care to go out of my way and try to get them through the local library or however else it is possible to get them. I don't have satellite TV or cable so there really is little chance for me to do it that way. Also, living abroad makes it that much harder to get movies "legitimately" and for that the internet is a life saver in some ways.
Here is the way I look at the "ethics" of downloading (written to you filmmakers especially).
If the principle of Buddhism is to free beings from suffering, it is of course always against a Buddhist code of ethics to cause it. Now, sharing movies, books, music, likely harms no one. Indeed, given the subject matter, perhaps sharing this media reduces suffering in the world. Yes perhaps the artist may directly lose some sales, but, they might also make up for them by having a larger audience. The bigger the audience, the greater the chance that SOMEONE will buy their swag. Also, it will make them more famous and therefore profit them. And hey, if their films were playing in my neck of the woods for a decent price, I'd consider paying.
Dear John Q. Filmmaker,
If I do like your movie, I will advertise it for you by word of mouth and you surely would rather have that than nothing, wouldn't you? That can very likely translate to revenue for you. The fact is, the internet has democratized media, we now have the power, you do not. Sorry. Revolution is a bitch ain't it?!?!
Would you really have a smaller audience but be slightly wealthier (if it really could work that way?).
In an age where sharing/copying information costs nothing, I think it is immoral to NOT share. This goes for all artists and publishers, bloggers, private persons, and movie producers.
Their businesses exist to create value for society. Trying to suppress a technology which removes distribution costs is not creating value. It is reactionary.
They should not try to change reality to fit their business models. They must change their business models to fit reality.
The purpose of any economic system has always been to use and distribute all resources as effectively as possible. This should be kept in mind.
Sorry to sound so stern with my first comment on your blog. Keep up the good work!
I agree with you on this, and I appreciate the time you take to provide for us.
The Buddha teaches us not to take what has not been given. But rather to do the reverse: cultivate generosity and give away and let go of what we have.
Depending on our capacity, we can choose to interpret and live after this to different degrees.
The more we give up negative acts and adopt good ones, the quicker we will be able to let go of our ego and reach liberation. The teachings are meant to be taken personally.
Spreading out and sharing, and most of all, downloading the copyrighted works of others seems to me to be closer to "taking" than "giving". I don't see much generosity in the act of sharing OTHERS works created through THEIR efforts and their loans and investments.
Whether others make money, or end up in debt through their productions is beside the point. If the movie makers are rich or not, is also beside the point. But I would guess that very few people make personal fortunes from spreading dharma teachings. And if they live or not live according to your ideas that "the dharma should be free" is also beside the point.
The teachings are meant to be taken personally by us. Are you taking them personally, or are you just telling those creating dharma materials that they should?
When someone is downloading without paying the creator/artist/producer my guess is that there is quite a bit of self-centered reasoning going on.
There is plenty of genuinely free dharma material to study to keep yourself busy without downloading stuff that the producers are hoping to get paid for.
Check out http://www.lotsawahouse.org/ for instance.
OK, I have absolutely no problem with downloading torrents (to which I am very grateful to you), but it would be deluded to think that that is anything else but stealing. Although Dharma is and should be free, all or some parts of authors revenues are sometimes intended for spreading Dharma among peoples less fortunate than many of us. And also for support of Buddhist monasteries, food, etc... So yes, we are stealing an time will come when something will be stolen from us. For the sake of all sentient beings, I sincerely hope that it will also be Dharma. However, occasional donation to some decent Buddhist monk or monastery, or actually buying some books that I really like, should hopefully lessen some of bad karma accumulated this way.
To such accusations of piracy I always reply:
Why isn't there a site with RSS notifications of various upcoming buddhist releases which offers them at a reasonable price and instant delivery anywhere in the world with no extra charges. I would gladly welcome such a page. In the meantime this site does the job, the technology is there waiting to be employed but it is being constantly rejected by publishers. Times have changed, global village is reality and they certainly benefit from it in terms of sales, but they still want you to play by the old rules, rules of distribution that were created for XIX century reality.
Hi "Bodhibuilder"!
I would also welcome such a page.
Why don't you set one up? Pay for it, do the work and run around the world to convince all the publishers. All on your unpaid spare time of course.
This is not the age of the kings, when rich sponsors (i.e. "someone else") pay for travels, teachings and everything. Most of us are housholders that work for a living, and have to help eachother by chipping in our separate parts for having teachers traveling around the world, or paying for teaching facilities, food, recording equipment etc.
In the mean time, check out these dharma teachings on-line, immediate delivery, asking you to donate whatever you feel you can afford, here at http://dharmasun.org/
I love this blog. Your blog give us review about product. Because of your blog lots of writer etc become popular.
I am aware of the free dharma teachings on the net. I often listen to audiodharma.org where I can listen to the teachings and opinions for free. This is awesome. It is also a model that others should take on.
For anyone to make a recording of a teaching and then sell it is immoral in my view. They have already received income (I understand not necesarily profit) from charging for the retreat where the teaching was given. So to then go on to charge for the recording is just increasing that income. I am sure when the original recording of the retreat was planend they took into account all the expenses that would need to be covered.
The media is based on a business model that is far out of date.
Teachers no longer need to travel the world to give dharma teachings. They could very easily record themselves on a portable recorder from their bed, they don't even have to get up and get dressed.
I myself downlaoded Kundun. Iwatched it again after many years of the firsttime I saw this movie. I then went on to Amazon to order it. If I read an ebook and enjoy it I will buy it.
What I am trying to say is if the teachers who give their recordings to palces like audiodharma.org can do it for free then why are others charging, what can be a small fortune to those on a low income, for theirs.
The Dharma was 'given' by the Buddha. Not sold. Yes, people gave him good, but that is the point. The Buddha gave, people gave back. There was no pre requisite of listening to teaching only if you gae before hand.
If you knew the dharma and someone asked you about it would you give them insight without expecting anything back?
I use free software downloaded from the internet. If I use it a couple of times and it works I gladly give money to the programmer. Then there is software out there that is totally useless to me or is badly written. The same can be said for movies, books, audio. I have seen this in all types of media on Buddhism, some of it great, some good, and some that was terrible.
Ever go to Library Peter? Have you ever taken out a book or DVD? Watched it at home and returned it? Have you ever been to a friends and watched a movie? Did he charge you later for the right to watch it? Have you ever been to a book store and read a few pages of a book and then put it back? Did you know that you stole those few paragraph's? Honestly, by your definition no one has the right to share. Believe it or nor but at some point all the material on this blog had to be purchased at one point. Someone had to by the original DVD or Ebook or Album and that person said "Hey! This Album is great! I should let others hear it." Much like if I handed you a book and said "Read this, it will make you happy." I could also go out and photocopy that book to get a cheaper version of the original, but that too would cost me money as well as a "BIG FUCKING TREE!!!" The beauty of digital is it costs nothing. But then that's not entirely true. That DVD I downloaded for free goes for $30 in the stores. But I got it for free!!! No wait? Dont I have to pay my ISP a monthly fee for the grace of using the Internet? Oh yeah and the electricity bill to power my computer.
So you know your point of view, like the Buddha says, is delusion. A big mass of delusion created by huge corporations whos bottom line is infinite growth of dollars.
Here's a question? If you steal something and the owner dosent know it gone, is that Theft?
I remember way back in the 80's when I was a kid and I used to record songs off the radio with cassettes and everyone said you will get in trouble for that, its stealing. Now adays, they couldn't care less. DO you think Nirvana is any less poorer for that song I recorded in 1988? No pun intended.
Am I and others stealing profits from the poor? The poor film maker who mortgaged his house to make his crappy film on Buddhism? You bet I am. I steal every day.
I steal from the dieing in Africa with my indifference. From the suffering in Gaza with my deluded preference of the facts. From malnutritioned children in Nepal whom I trek past while on vacation. I steal every day, including from myself when I watch crap on the computer instead of mediating or helping the suffering. When I drive in my car I rob the planet big time.
Semantics, Semantics.
Well said.
It angers me when people equate copying information with stealing.
I would never have bought these albums. I could never afford them. Everything I read comes from the library.
They argue, since I didn't buy their CD, they have lost profits. The truth of the matter is, almost no reader on this blog would have bought the CDs. There is no potential profit to be lost.
Nothing has been lost by the producer of the art. How can theft have occurred?
I agree eohm, I downloaded one dharma teaching and listened to it. It was by a well known dharma teacher who charges a lot for their CDs.
At one point the teacher said they were going to do a meditation. Then it cuts out and goes onto the next sections. This was on a continuous MP3 file so was not the work of the uploader.
Now, if I had spent the money on that CD I would be fuming, pay all that money and they cut out one of the major parts! It was a disgrace. I am thankful I could download the CD beforehand.
Plus as I said in an earlier comment, if teachers are willing to upload free audio of their teaching on places like audiodharma.org then there is NO excuse for the others to charge. They think just because they've published a few books they then get to charge for their teachings which have already been paid for by the people who attended the live audience. Its like taxing tax.
How dare they charge for teachings that were passed onto them for free. As they went to monasteries and received the teachings without charge and then they are charging for their passing on of those teaching surely that is stealing, its certainly a form of plagiarism.
If you receive for free then pass it on for free as well.
Peter, it is not my idea that the dharma should be free. It was given by the Buddha for free. So it is NOT beside the point. It is a very good point that people should not receive free teachings and then charge for them to be passed on.
I think the self-centred reasoning is coming from the creator/artist/producer. So are you saying that only those who can afford these recordings are entitled to them? Are you saying only those who can afford food are entitled to it?
As you say there is plenty of free stuff out there, so why do some people expect to get paid for exactly the same thing.
It is preposterous what you say that we need to chip in for teachers to travel. It is so ludicrous that I don't even want to comment further on it. But think of this. I need to come to work to earn money. My company does not pay my transit ticket. I have to.
If a teacher on one side of the country wants to do a lecture on the other side and needs to fly there then why should we have to pay for that. We live in a technological age where there is no need for this at all. If anything they can put up a paypal for donations to get $50 for a webcam.
If I took my kids to visit their grandmother I would not expect her to pay for the travel fees.
I see the passing on of these torrents as the same type of thing as people who learnt directly from the Buddha passing on his teachings to others.
Isn't part of buddhism about non-attachment. Well if these people who do recordings say it is copyrighted then aren't they attaching themselves to it. Plus I think if anyone should hold the copyright it should be the original teacher. So aren't these people who are charging for their audio "stealing". It is like someone else said, it is jsut like going to the store and looking through a magazine. That is then stealing.
I want to thank you for keeping the site again, and to anyone who is comlaining - DON'T USE IT if you don't agree with it, but don't spoil it for others. I think the propagation of the dharma is GREAT!
Its very interesting to read all the comments here.
I completely appreciate all the effort that Buddha Torrents puts in to make all this material available! I'm thankful for it every day!
I feel a bit uncomfortable every now and then as I feel I am depriving the people involved in creating a book/audio recording/dvd of some financial reward, and that may be jeopardising the creation of new documentaries etc,..
Any discomfort I have is for me to work out and its my choice as to whether I download something, buy or borrow it.
Don't you all notice how easy to be a moralist above all of us (stupid immoral beings)? People, let us be reasonable there. If someone decides to make a Big Money on a subject that should be free for all and, consequently, lead them to liberation, what is the moral power on their side then (again)? One who does the movie labeled "Milarepa" (e.g.) should never expect a gratitude from everyone for his mixed emotions about an object and for a transfer of his/hers "ideas" on this or any other matter! I will never cough some money-penny for a such movie or a "new age - styled music album" without "having a tase" of it first. When you are dumb enough to buy anything that comes with "Britney Spears" on it, that's fine by me. But do not expect everyone to follow. Am I the only one who still thinks that U2 and/or "Titanic"(the movie) are all solid pieces of crap? Oh, yeah, I know, most of you cannot agree with me because you have splashed for them from your own wallet, LOL! As for Buddha Dharma, it was never a commodity, but it was a gift!
Peter!
The Buddha teaches us not to take what has not been given.
Just tell me how all those Copyright protected "artists" and "creators" will pay back to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for providing them with the "material" (which was free in a first place)?
But rather to do the reverse: cultivate generosity and give away and let go of what we have.
Are you writing it from the Yogi cave?
It is Kali-Yuga out there, man, the last days of Gautama's Dharma. No time to loose. When Tibetan Lamas came down to India, they were dying(because of Indian TB) and giving whatever they could to anyone who was interested in it. You shouldn't point us to the web-site which require us to learn Tibetan first. No time for it. Buddha spoke Pali, even more ancient version of it (never Tibetan!), there are no bounds in our minds to be somewhat deprived because of it! To cut it short, Dude, if you have something, then share it before it is too late for everyone!
It's like preaching to the choir here. Has any one here ever had anything they wrote/filmed/recorded put up on a site that propagates the theft of intellectual copyright? The material presented here has real value, most of them are aimed at a niche audience and produced by small independent artists who pay technicians, printers, tax and other costs.
If you gain access to copyright material from here and you use it you are stealing.
You never have to justify, explain, excuse or defend what is true.
Meditate on this:
At the end of the week your boss explains he is not going to pay you anymore, in order to help you break your attachment to money. He knows your a buddhist and understand the fourfold path; that everything you can buy with money is transient and your attachment to it causes you suffering. Do you thank him for his freely given support and advice, or tell him to f off and quit for another paying job?
If it was your livelihood, and not the producers of the material here, would you be so happy to point to the Dhama and expect others to understand your high moral ground and spiritual materialism?
Ask the Buddha within yourself, is taking what it cost another time, money and work to produce, and not paying them, stealing?
The answer that comes is where you are at spiritually - thats all.
It's great fun to watch the way the ego drives people to justify stealing. It's a better lesson on the Dhama than many of the recordings here.
Dhama means how things actually are. That's all, it's not something metaphysical or mystical.
If you knowingly steal others work, that's dhama
If you justify it, thats dhama
If you feel you are right, that's dhama
If you feel you are wrong, that's dhama
The Buddha awoke to this, he taught that Nirvana IS Samsara.
So steal, if that's your dhama, and suffer. It is just where you are. If you cannot see beyond that, then you cannot see beyond that. You are attached to the Books, CDs and Films on this site, will not pay for them, and jusify.
When you awake to the fact that all your actions arises in your mind, not in the motives of others, and see beyond the veil of illusions that is your ego then you will let go of all justifications, lies, blame and delusion.
OH MY GOD!
"The Buddha awoke to this, he taught that Nirvana IS Samsara."
Erm....whoever this anonymous person is should really do some reading and learn something. Nirvana is THE END OF SUFFERING! How can Nirvana be Samsara.
I have my views and opinions and so do others. I can accept there are people who will agree with me and others who will damn me. But to put something that is beyond a doubt the most preposterous pretentious piece of crap....!!!! I really don't know what to say to this.
"You are attached to the Books, CDs and Films on this site, will not pay for them, and jusify."
So when you go to a library and read something do you instantly brain wash yourself of any reference to it? Everything you look at, read, listen to should be deleted from your memory in this case as holding onto quotes, memories etc is attachment in your opinion.
I think you need to learn what the true meaning of attachment is to a Buddhist.
So if we are attached to the books and movies we download then the film makers and producers who wrote to the blog owner are then also attached to the money making machine that is the media. So, if we are attached to these downloads then so be it. But if the producers are attached then everything is even, everything is balanced.
A means to an end!
"At the end of the week your boss explains he is not going to pay you anymore, in order to help you break your attachment to money"
I am certainly not attached to money. I couldn't care less if I was a millionaire or just had enough to scrape by. money is a necessity. An unfortunate fact but a fact never the less. If I was working for nothing then I would certainly not be doing a job for someone like that, I would be volunteering in a homeless shelter or other charitable benefit. I need money not because I am attached to it but because I have a mortgage, I have kids. They need a roof over their head and food on the table.
Sorry, but that comment I quoted is stupid. That would be like someone telling you to never eat ever again to help release you from your attachment to food. Maybe we should all stop breathing next to release ourselves from the attachment of air.
There is a big difference between earning money to feed my family and earning money so I can buy a 10,000 dollar Home Entertainment System.
Buddhists in the tradition of Nagarjuna hold that "nirvana is samsara." In other words, nirvana is not some state distinct from the everyday world. It is a teaching Mahayana buddhism holds to.
When I go to the library, I borrow. That is lawful
When I go to the bookshop I pay. That is lawful
When I use a torrent file I steal. That is not lawful
The copy-write holders are entitled to be paid for their work.
Perhaps you need to meditate a little more on the Five Precepts, with particular concentration on the 2nd and 4th.
1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants
And I would advise you to seek guidance outside your limited knowledge. Ask any ordained buddhist monk if he considers the theft of intellectual property, on any grounds, to be in keeping with Buddhist practice, that is it permissible for the Sangha?
And don't take things so personal. People are sharing views, exploring Buddhist ethics and how they fit in contemporary society.
Anonymous
Samsara is the cycle of rebirth and suffering.
Nirvana is the end of suffering. I'd really love to know where in any Buddhist text or sutra where it says they are the same. Please, I am open to be proved wrong here. Tell us where this is mentioned that they are the same thing? Of course they are not the same state else we wouldn't have different words to describe them!
As I have saidin other comments. Surely the Buddha is the True Copyright holder for the dharma. So where is his cut in all of this. He 'gave' dharma teachings and now people are profiting from it? So who is truly stealing and justifying their actions to suit themselves?
Well I can certainly say that the 2nd Precept does not apply to me as I live in a country where file sharing is NOT illegal so I am not breaking the law so how can it be stealing?
The 4th Precept? Tell me where I am making False Speech? I have used the word Opinion more than once. Are you saying that just because I have an opinion that others disagree with then it is false speech. Do you truly understand what that 4th Precept actually means? I suppsoe Christains may recognise that as 'Thou Shalt Not Lie'. Where exactly am I lying? And as for False Speech you say I have limited knowledge. Isn't that false speech as you have no idea of the level of my teachings?
The dharma was given by the Buddha. No charge. No fee. So those people who sell recordings for their own profit are stealing. They are stealing. taking something for free and selling it on. So how can someone who is morally stealing say that, for example, downloading a torrent is stealing. Is stealing a stolen item still stealing? Given what you say the Dharma is the "intellectual property" of the Buddha. So let these people selling their teachings justify that.
I'm not taking it personally. I'm giving my two cents on what my belief is in the ethics of all of this.
Didn't the Buddha teach us to question everything. I see this as healthy debate.
Oh, and just for those people posting here about how torrents are stealing and stealing is imorral then exactly what operating system are you using on your computer?
Windows?
http://www.sonic.net/~sirreal/ms.html
No you say? You have a mac?
http://www.macworld.com/article/50399/2006/04/patent.html
I suggest that if you stand so strongly on how Torrents are stealing then maybe you ought to format your hard drives now and use your computer as a doorstop.
You don't want ot be part of this "stealing" do you?
The Buddha would use Linux. We need a Mary to start making some comments on Peter and Paul. ;)
"The Buddha would use Linux."
Hahaha, so is this a new debate. Which distribution of Linux would the Buddha use?
Answers on a post card to:
Red Hat Linux Competition
13 Ubuntu Road.....
Paul said: "I get so pissed off when you look at certain popular web sites that sell Dharma recordings from retreats."
Why is that? I really like it when it is possible to get teachings from a retreat I couldn't attend.
Paul said: "If someone recorded themselves giving a lecture and just wanted the money to cover postage and the CD or a little towards server space then I say "give me your paypal account details"."
Paul, how about other expenses? Who should pay for them? Such as those for recording equipment? Maybe for rental of a studio, or perhaps even food for volonteer staff doing the editing? Or even salaries to professionals needed to create a good quality production? Can you explain to me who you feel should cover those expenses? Personally, I'm quite happy to chip in for those expenses, and to provide some conditions for more good stuff coming from the same source.
Paul said: "Anyway, this blog is just highlighting links to torrents. Its not like you have actually uplaoded the torrents yourself."
Good point. The downloaders are taking what has not been given. The sharers, uploaders etc are providing the means. Whatever good or bad karma accumulated in the process is shared between them all.
Anonymous said: "/.../I would have neither the means nor the care to go out of my way and try to get them through the local library or however else it is possible to get them."
I love libraries and free stuff. But when I can't be bothered to go out of the way to get something even for free, it is usually because I don't value it that much. When I really want something, I'm willing to work hard, save money, give up other things and my own comfort to get it.
Anonymous says: I don't have satellite TV or cable so there really is little chance for me to do it that way. Also, living abroad makes it that much harder to get movies "legitimately" and for that the internet is a life saver in some ways.
Well, then there is plenty, really plenty of "legitimately" freely available teachings, in writing, as audio and quite a lot as video. For me, finding time to listen to them all is the problem. And then also finding time to do the practices taught.
eohm said: "In an age where sharing/copying information costs nothing, I think it is immoral to NOT share. This goes for all artists and publishers, bloggers, private persons, and movie producers."
Sharing may cost nothing, or possibly just a little, all depending on what infrasturcture and skill you have access to. But producing a movie certainly costs. Who should pay?
Another (?) Anonymous wrote: "OK, I have absolutely no problem with downloading torrents (to which I am very grateful to you), but it would be deluded to think that that is anything else but stealing. "
I like your honesty, and to some extent my view is the same as yours. Whenever I occasionally download something, I try not to justify my actions with deluded interpretations of the dharma. If I can find the stuff I want to see through undisputed legal channels I prefer that. I know others have a harder time get their money to last.
Paul said: "I am aware of the free dharma teachings on the net. /.../ This is awesome. It is also a model that others should take on. "
I try to rejoice in everyone that takes that on. However I don't see the point in pointing fingers at those not doing it, as a simple justification of your own actions.
Paul said: "I am sure when the original recording of the retreat was planend they took into account all the expenses that would need to be covered."
I think this varies a lot. Many times it is not the case.
Paul said: "I myself downlaoded Kundun. Iwatched it again after many years of the firsttime I saw this movie. I then went on to Amazon to order it."
Good for you, good for the movie makers. Good for the rest of us as well.
Paul said: "What I am trying to say is if the teachers who give their recordings to palces like audiodharma.org can do it for free then why are others charging, what can be a small fortune to those on a low income, for theirs."
If you ask each one personally, and honestly, you will get some very different, interesting and enlightening answers. Try that.
Buddha Torrents said: "Ever go to Library Peter? Have you ever taken out a book or DVD? Watched it at home and returned it?"
Yes to all that. This is how libraries work. The libraries are buying media and rights, and then lending out the contents in agreement with the rights of the author, etc.
Buddha Torrents said: " Have you ever been to a friends and watched a movie? Did he charge you later for the right to watch it?"
Yes, I have. And, no, my friends haven't charged me. Actually the friends usually are not allowed to charge for the watching, normally they have just bought or rented the right to view and show it for non-commercial purpouses.
Buddha torrents wrote: "Have you ever been to a book store and read a few pages of a book and then put it back? Did you know that you stole those few paragraph's?"
Sure. How so? How did I take what has not been given? The only one with any say in that would perhaps be the bookstore, but usually they see that as their marketing.
Buddha torrents wrote: "Honestly, by your definition no one has the right to share."
Then I must have been very unclear, sorry about that. I didn't really try to talk about the sharing. I'm mostly talking about the downloading. That is taking what has not been given, according to me.
Buddha torrents wrote: "Believe it or nor but at some point all the material on this blog had to be purchased at one point. Someone had to by the original DVD or Ebook or Album and that person said "Hey! This Album is great! I should let others hear it." Much like if I handed you a book and said "Read this, it will make you happy." "
No, not quite like that. If the DVD was purchased, then the buyer is usually completely free to give away the DVD. The same with a book. This fact is a part of the conditions why the prices are set as they are. The buyer didn't buy the rights to duplicate the material and give (or sell) copies to others.
Buddha torrents: "I could also go out and photocopy that book to get a cheaper version of the original, but that too would cost me money as well as a "BIG FUCKING TREE!!!" "
This is usually illegal and violating the rights of the creator. And thereby, in a sense, taking what has not been given.
Buddha torrents said: "The beauty of digital is it costs nothing."
Which only makes it so much easier to take what has not been given.
Buddha torrents said: "Here's a question? If you steal something and the owner dosent know it gone, is that Theft?"
Are we talking about law or precepts or unvirtuous acts here?
Buddha torrents: "I remember way back in the 80's when I was a kid and I used to record songs off the radio with cassettes and everyone said you will get in trouble for that, its stealing."
Actually they cared a lot, at least in Sweden, enough to introduce a special tax on casette tapes, where the money from that tax somehow was distributed among copyright owners according to some rules I have no clue about.
eohm said: "It angers me when people equate copying information with stealing."
Too bad. May your anger be completely purified. I'm talking about "taking what has not been given", in dharma terms, to the best of my ability.
eohm said: "I would never have bought these albums. I could never afford them. Everything I read comes from the library."
Good. Use libraries more.
eohm said: "They argue, since I didn't buy their CD, they have lost profits. The truth of the matter is, almost no reader on this blog would have bought the CDs. There is no potential profit to be lost. "
Nope, this is not the argument. At least not mine. The point is that the downloader is taking what has not been given. And this is not benefiting the downloader. Better to practice generosity. Or at least pay for what you take/consume. Wheter potential profit is lost or not is beside my point. If you are motivated by greed or stingyness is what matters for you, independent of wheter the recording is from a large and rich company or from a poor non-profit organization spreading the dharma.
eohm said: "Nothing has been lost by the producer of the art. How can theft have occurred?"
In the most coarse way you are right. But your stingy, selfish mind has once again gotten what it wanted. This forms a habit.
Paul said: "Peter, it is not my idea that the dharma should be free. It was given by the Buddha for free. "
Did the Buddha say that dharma should be free? Can you provide some scriptural reference for that. I'd like to read that. I've heard it being said many times, but failed to find any texts where it is written. Please share.
Paul said: "So it is NOT beside the point. It is a very good point that people should not receive free teachings and then charge for them to be passed on."
Sorry for being a bit unclear. My point is that our downloading of copyrighted material is "taking what has not been given". It is pointless to try to justify that with the fact that Buddha gave teacings without asking for payment.
Paul said: "I think the self-centred reasoning is coming from the creator/artist/producer. So are you saying that only those who can afford these recordings are entitled to them? Are you saying only those who can afford food are entitled to it?"
I'm not talking about who is entitled to what, or what is fair or not. I'm just saying that downloading copyrighted material is "taking what has not been given". Listen to some of the downloaded teachings, and I'm that sure somewhere you will hear that the Buddha advises us NOT to do that if we want to be of benefit to ourselves and others. Complaining about what the creators/artists/producers are doing is not dharma, neither is using the dharma to critizise others.
Paul said: "As you say there is plenty of free stuff out there, so why do some people expect to get paid for exactly the same thing."
Why bother? Let them sow their seeds, and experience their own fruition. Rejoice in the fact that the teachings are available at all. How would you meet the teachings without their efforts?
Paul said: "It is preposterous what you say that we need to chip in for teachers to travel. It is so ludicrous that I don't even want to comment further on it. But think of this. I need to come to work to earn money. My company does not pay my transit ticket. I have to.
If a teacher on one side of the country wants to do a lecture on the other side and needs to fly there then why should we have to pay for that. We live in a technological age where there is no need for this at all. If anything they can put up a paypal for donations to get $50 for a webcam. "
If I want to see my dharma teacher, I need to go to Asia, or to some European or American country when he visits. For him to get to Europe there is some major travel arrangements to be made. He doesn't need to come. He comes when he is invited, so it would be foolish to expect him to come on our request, and on top of that pay for his own ticket. Or I can watch him for free, and pay a volontary donation at http://dharmasun.org.
Paul said: "Isn't part of buddhism about non-attachment. Well if these people who do recordings say it is copyrighted then aren't they attaching themselves to it. Plus I think if anyone should hold the copyright it should be the original teacher. So aren't these people who are charging for their audio "stealing"."
You may have a point or two here, but I suggest that you investigate each case individually before passing judgemets around. And my point is that we should avoid judging others, and instead look at our own minds, and our true motivation for taking what has not been given.
anderalex said: "Peter!
The Buddha teaches us not to take what has not been given.
Just tell me how all those Copyright protected "artists" and "creators" will pay back to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for providing them with the "material" (which was free in a first place)? "
Some do this, some don't. What is your point? Do you feel that they need to pay some tax to the three jewels in order to get paid for their efforts?
anderalex said: "But rather to do the reverse: cultivate generosity and give away and let go of what we have.
Are you writing it from the Yogi cave? "
Nope, but I'm aspiring to. What is your question, really?"
anderalex said: "You shouldn't point us to the web-site which require us to learn Tibetan first."
I don't get this? Wich site requires knowledge of Tibetan?
anderalex said: "if you have something, then share it before it is too late for everyone!"
It's not like the teachings are getting lost because some publishers are trying to get a few bucks for their work. If the teachings are dying out, it's because they are not practiced.
Oops! A bith lengthy. :-)
And, yes, where is Mary?
Response to Peter:
[Paul said: "I get so pissed off when you look at certain popular web sites that sell Dharma recordings from retreats."
Why is that? I really like it when it is possible to get teachings from a retreat I couldn't attend.]
Now you cut off too early whilst quoting me. I am not pissed off at the recordings, I am pissed off that the retreat is paid for by attendees and any decent accountant would know to cover those costs prudentially. You do not assume extra income from sales to cover those costs. If anyone tells you otherwise they either really have no business sense or are stupid to do something at a financial loss
[Paul, how about other expenses? Who should pay for them? Such as those for recording equipment? (Snip)Can you explain to me who you feel should cover those expenses? Personally, I'm quite happy to chip in for those expenses, and to provide some conditions for more good stuff coming from the same source.]
As I have already said. There are people out there who record their teachings and upload them to the net for free. I have even ordered CDs from web sites at no cost. If the teacher wants to travel and have hi-tech gadgets for recording then that is their expense. Not ours. You can get a very good quality recording from something like an iRiver. My Creative Zen does excellent recording.
[Good point. The downloaders are taking what has not been given. The sharers, uploaders etc are providing the means. Whatever good or bad karma accumulated in the process is shared between them all.]
And *if* it comes to this, that it is bad Karma then I agree with this point that it would be both uploader and downloader so who has to deal with karmic ramifications be it good or bad.
[Paul said: "I am aware of the free dharma teachings on the net. /.../ This is awesome. It is also a model that others should take on. "
I try to rejoice in everyone that takes that on. However I don't see the point in pointing fingers at those not doing it, as a simple justification of your own actions.]
Not justifying my own actions in the slightest. It is a very valid point that if some people can do it for free then why do others expect to get paid for it. It’s a difference between giving and selling.
[Paul said: "I am sure when the original recording of the retreat was planend they took into account all the expenses that would need to be covered."
I think this varies a lot. Many times it is not the case.]
Then this is in the fault of the teacher or organizer. But I am confident in saying if you think they never accounted for costs then you are severely deluded.
[Paul said: "What I am trying to say is if the teachers who give their recordings to palces like audiodharma.org can do it for free then why are others charging, what can be a small fortune to those on a low income, for theirs."
If you ask each one personally, and honestly, you will get some very different, interesting and enlightening answers. Try that.]
An opportunity I would gladly welcome. Unfortuantely it is next to impossible to get a response from a lot of places.
[Buddha Torrents said: " Have you ever been to a friends and watched a movie? Did he charge you later for the right to watch it?"
Yes, I have. And, no, my friends haven't charged me. Actually the friends usually are not allowed to charge for the watching, normally they have just bought or rented the right to view and show it for non-commercial purpouses.]
So as your friend paid for it what gives you the right to view the movie for free?
[Buddha torrents: "I remember way back in the 80's when I was a kid and I used to record songs off the radio with cassettes and everyone said you will get in trouble for that, its stealing."
Actually they cared a lot, at least in Sweden, enough to introduce a special tax on casette tapes, where the money from that tax somehow was distributed among copyright owners according to some rules I have no clue about. ]
So if someone purchased a cassette to record their own voice they still paid that tax. So the Swedish Government is taking?
[eohm said: "It angers me when people equate copying information with stealing."
Too bad. May your anger be completely purified. I'm talking about "taking what has not been given", in dharma terms, to the best of my ability.]
And these teachings recorded are taking from The Buddha who gave them for free. So everyone is in the same karmic basket so to speak.
[eohm said: "I would never have bought these albums. I could never afford them. Everything I read comes from the library."
Good. Use libraries more.]
The libraries where you live must be awesome to carry such a varied selection!
[Nope, this is not the argument. At least not mine. The point is that the downloader is taking what has not been given. And this is not benefiting the downloader. Better to practice generosity. ]
But the downloader IS taking what is GIVEN. The Uploader is giving it.
[Paul said: "Peter, it is not my idea that the dharma should be free. It was given by the Buddha for free. "
Did the Buddha say that dharma should be free? Can you provide some scriptural reference for that. I'd like to read that. I've heard it being said many times, but failed to find any texts where it is written. Please share.]
Show me the Buddhas tax return for his income based on his teachings?
[Paul said: "So it is NOT beside the point. It is a very good point that people should not receive free teachings and then charge for them to be passed on."
Sorry for being a bit unclear. My point is that our downloading of copyrighted material is "taking what has not been given". It is pointless to try to justify that with the fact that Buddha gave teacings without asking for payment.]
And you think its right???
If someone gave you something you think it is morally fine for you to then sell it and make profit from it?
[Paul said: "I think the self-centred reasoning is coming from the creator/artist/producer. So are you saying that only those who can afford these recordings are entitled to them? Are you saying only those who can afford food are entitled to it?"
Complaining about what the creators/artists/producers are doing is not dharma, neither is using the dharma to critizise others.]
Are you not criticizing us for downloading?
[Paul said: "It is preposterous what you say that we need to chip in for teachers to travel. It is so ludicrous that I don't even want to comment further on it. But think of this. I need to come to work to earn money. My company does not pay my transit ticket. I have to.
If I want to see my dharma teacher, I need to go to Asia, or to some European or American country when he visits. For him to get to Europe there is some major travel arrangements to be made. He doesn't need to come. He comes when he is invited, so it would be foolish to expect him to come on our request, and on top of that pay for his own ticket. Or I can watch him for free, and pay a volontary donation at http://dharmasun.org. ]
So when you go to America or where ever, who pays for the tickets? You! You want to go therefore you pay. If a teacher gets invited somewhere and an event is planned then it is up to the organizer to ensure expenses are covered. Maybe you need to read up on basic accounting and business?
[You may have a point or two here, but I suggest that you investigate each case individually before passing judgemets around. And my point is that we should avoid judging others, and instead look at our own minds, and our true motivation for taking what has not been given.]
I have never once said all teachers are bad because they are gaining profit from what is free. I am saying that if John Smith will record his teachings and distribute to the world for free but Joe Bloggs charges then who is at fault? To answer your question tho, I have no problem downloading as in my mind I cannot steal that which was ORIGINALLY given for free. I am merely cutting out the middle mans greed.
[And, yes, where is Mary?]
She’s downloading torrents so her bandwidth is being taken up! ;)
Final comments to Paul - enough time spent on this on my part:
[Paul: So as your friend paid for it what gives you the right to view the movie for free?]
The friend paid for the DVD and for the right to view it and show it at home for non-commercial purpouses. You probably already know this.
[Paul: So if someone purchased a cassette to record their own voice they still paid that tax. So the Swedish Government is taking?]
I think so, yes.
[Paul: And you think its right???
If someone gave you something you think it is morally fine for you to then sell it and make profit from it?]
Again, I'm sorry for confusing matters and not being clear. I'm trying not to talk about rights and wrongs and morals of the those who publish dharma recordings of various sorts (or of the rights or wrongs of the Swedish tax system).
[Paul said:Are you not criticizing us for downloading?]
I hope not. I'm just saying that downloading of copyrighted material is "taking what has not been given". I don't think I have blamed or criticize you for doing it. My advise to you, and to myself, is to refrain from doing it. Maybe I have critizied you - in that case I apologize.
[Paul said: If a teacher gets invited somewhere and an event is planned then it is up to the organizer to ensure expenses are covered. Maybe you need to read up on basic accounting and business?]
I'm sure that I, as well as many volounteer dharma groups could benefit from knowing more about accounting and business.
Thanks for sharing views. It's interesting to see how different peoples views can be.
Exit: Peter
[The friend paid for the DVD and for the right to view it and show it at home for non-commercial purpouses. You probably already know this.]
I do know this but I think this falls into the Lending, Copying or Hiring part of the rental contract. This is why TV companies say we should not record programs off of the TV and show them to others.
[Again, I'm sorry for confusing matters and not being clear. I'm trying not to talk about rights and wrongs and morals of the those who publish dharma recordings of various sorts (or of the rights or wrongs of the Swedish tax system).]
But you are. You have said more than once "taken what is not given" so you are doing exactly that! You ARE talking about the rights and wrongs of it all.
[I hope not. I'm just saying that downloading of copyrighted material is "taking what has not been given". I don't think I have blamed or criticize you for doing it. My advise to you, and to myself, is to refrain from doing it. Maybe I have critizied you - in that case I apologize.]
I do not feel critisized at all. You have done no wrong in my opinion...neither have I. I am seeing this as healthy debate. I have seen in some Buddhist documentaries (downlaoded from here ;) ) that even Tibetan Monks debate the dharma in full. There is nothing wrong with debate. Without debate that would mean everyone blindly accepts everythnig that is said to them. Some things I have said may make you think, and some things you have said may make me think.
Oh, and the Cassette thing, I was intrigued about as I wondered how the Swedish Governemtn could take a tax for only somethngi that is potential (recording from the radio etc). I found it interesting and will probably look up info on that as it will be very interesting to see how they dealt with it.
Bye Peter, have a good weekend! Namaste
Yes you have an answer for everything. Your way up above us all on your moral high ground. Hows the air up there? So I have a honest question for you? Have you ever downloaded anything from this blog or anywhere else that was "Illegal" as defined by the laws of your country.
And I would advise you to seek guidance outside your limited knowledge. Ask any ordained buddhist monk if he considers the theft of intellectual property, on any grounds, to be in keeping with Buddhist practice, that is it permissible for the Sangha?
What a gorgeous bunch of bull!
"Buddhist" does not mean "Buddha".
Tala'i Lama doesn't spell "GOD".
You are NOT an ordained Monk.
Those who sell DVDs (for a material gain) with the label "Dharma" on them ARE the thieves (intellectual property, ya'know...)
P.S.: to seek guidance outside your limited knowledge
Take it to the Mosque, dear Wiseguy. If you are somehow "limited" do no not stick labels to our backs. And, BTW, Samsara = Nirvana. If you are looking for something (hidden from your limited sight, maybe?) outside, then you are NOT a Buddhist... Just another pissed off preacher of some radical bull.
Om Svasti!
I am sorry for saying you are (whoever you are) not a Buddhist. And still, Gautama have spent more than 40 years teaching every type of beings. But, you know, there was one guy in his "flock", who have been with Buddha for almost 40 years. He was saying to newcomers: "The difference between me and Buddha is that I can't emanate the light in the darkness" He died as stupid as he came into this world... And, once more, who do you think pays Karl Heinrich Marx or Johann Sebastian Bach? Do you like your Che Guevara T-shirt?
It is rhetorical, don't sweat it, please!
ॐ
It is pointless to make a point when someone have taken position of not accepting it from anyone else except for himself. Am I clear now, Peter?
If you are so "aspired", why do you still teach us "not to steal" instead of sitting in a little doghouse on top of Kailash (to help all of us unclean sentient beings)?
Believe me, I pay for books (REAL Buddhist Books) which cost me more than I can afford. I doubt my collection of CD-s and DVD-s is less than that of a some local record shop (overstated, based on a quality, not a quantity) But if anyone anywhere will ask me to copy some pages from these books I will do it without any little doubt! I have downloaded two "CD-rips" of Lama I admire, but I have no desire to pay someone who published these CDs. I will (and I say "I WILL") give him some money, but from my hand to his one. No other way.
There's a story. One good Irish Catholic decided to sponsor not a dolphin, but an African orphan boy. When this old man has retired from his day job he came to Africa to meet a boy he thought he was saving from starving... What a surprise! Boy was way long dead. That man did pay some elderly-hippy-b$£ch-turned-to-a-savior vages! Period.
If you think you are so honest and THAT generous, then buy a burger to that hobo lady on the corner of your street. Say her "Om Mani Peme Hung", even she will not not get it right straight away. There's no copyright written on it.
IT IS FREE.
And, yes, I do use LINUX.
Where did you get the notion that I am a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? I never claimed these things, they arose in your mind.
I download material all the time, and upload, in the full knowledge that it is in violation of the Copyright laws of the country it was produced in. I can come up with a million reasons for my actions, but at the end of the day it's theft and I have no excuse for it.
Now, I don't know which Buddha you are referring to as the copyright holder of the dhama. I take it you are speaking about siddharta gautuma. He was not the first Buddha, or indeed the last as he has promised.
I never mentioned the Dali Lama. That arose in your own mind.
As for the 2nd and 4th precepts are for you to use wisdom and discernment. Interpret them as you may. Or seek what does practicing the path have to say.
Thats my lot for this debate. I've got a 3 hour video on Yoga to watch!
Anonymous.
First of all I notice you are even too scared to put a name to your posts. Even a fake one.
So you never claimed to be Buddhist or Muslim, yet you do seem to have this notion you may actually be god in all of this.
So if you download how on earth would you dare to say anything to anyone about downloading. Come down off that high horse and if you think downloading is criminal then get it into your head you are criminal too. Stop trying to be this all knowing entity that is holier than thou yet you are on this blog, you visit it and download. Realise your true self.
Not once did I mention Siddharta so why did you even comment on that. Are you trying to put in some minute menial piece of knowledge to try and make someone think you have any idea at all? Siddharta wasn't the first buddha...indeed? What did you google that?
Do the so called teachers who are stealing free information and teachings and selling them on know about that 2nd and 4th Precept? Do you for that matter as you say it is for us to interpret. Sounds like a cheap get out as you don't truly understan what they represent.
I wouldn't watch that Yoga video if I were you. You may end up being damned or something!
Capitalism demands that all others be capitalists too ... that is ... consumers of goods that cost money.
I note that God is not a capitalist, nor is mother nature.
Capitalism is an OK system as far as unnatural systems go. But I reject its demand that I be a capitalist too.
I live in it (capitalism) but I am not of it. I tolerate it as far as I am forced to. But no 'ism' has ever existed (or ever will) that I will totally bend my self to.
Let each man live according to the law he finds in his own conscience. We are humans and not machines.
Eventually capitalism will get the the place where sharing a book with a friend will be illegal. Watching TV at someone else's house will be illegal. Libraries will be shut down. Education will be only for those that can pay for it. We will rent or license every thing and own nothing.
Microsoft has recently patented a system whereby you do not own your own computer but rent time on it and are charged according to how much time you used it and how much computing power you needed.
Capitalism demands ... its own growth. It demands progressively higher and higher price increases. It demands more and more profit. To stagnant is to collapse. To lower prices is to collapse.
IN other parts of the world .. capitalism as put upon them by America - is deemed evil and inhuman. They hate us Americans for forcing our laws upon them.
Imagine a world where medical care was free. Imagine a world where the excess food you scrape off your plate into the garbage is a meal for someone who has not eaten in several days. Imagine a world where education was free for all classes of people. Imagine a world where laws are not based on the difference between those who have and those who have not. This world is NOT the world of capitalism.
I tolerate capitalism (I live in it) but it has not become my god.
Let each man live according to the moment and according to the law he finds within his own conscience. In the mean time - reality is we must also keep in mind what others may force us to do also but that should never become our god.
Let us live in freedom where and when we can.
Thank you for this blog. But do not put yourself in any danger. Play the game wisely.
I do agree with eolem who wrote, "They should not try to change reality to fit their business models. They must change their business models to fit reality." but alas capitalism demands that reality be changed to fit its business model and its ever expanding need for further, larger, profits.
Let each live according to his own conscience but with a wary eye out for what other may be able to force him to do also.
Freeman
Well put Freeman. Couldn't agree with you more!
I learned one lesson for sure in the dharmic teachings; the law of distribution; When I freely give as a gift of love I freely receive multiplied.
Now, If the filmakers and publishers were more faithful to the buddhas and to their teachings (which now they are trying to sell) they would receive something more than money; The love of the Buddhas resulting to a peace which they have never felt in the pursuit of money and copyrights. Seeing that they are obstructing the free expansion of dharma I only pity them because still they are so far from dharma, trying to sell something which is not theirs.
It is supposed that they are tryiing to expand dharma and not making money out of it.
Their unfaithfulness will be rewarded accordingly.
I applaud Freeman. Perfect response. Perfect.
If one says "take it to the Mosque" it applies to a conduct, not to a religious choice. Sheesh! And yes, Gautama wasn't a first one nor he was the last one. But that doesn't implies the Truth will become somewhat different. Our options will. We have choice. You deny this for us. O'kay, then!..
And, BTW, if you are not a Buddhist, nor a Muslim seeking something you want to know better about a topic , why you are so stubborn in commenting on "THE ETHICS OF BUDDHIST DOWNLOADING"? The Buddha gave us all many tools for self-liberation, not a knowledge of The COPYRIGHT LAWS.
What you did or did not "mention" does not matter. I it is always there, when someone shows his attitude. Try to do something better with your own life instead of pointing your finger at "everyone else different".
Name's Karma Tsoendru Gelek, BTW. You can call me Alex. I do "steal" the Dharma, because there's no the Buddha in town. What a pity, isn't it?
This is what I think. Knowledge and information cannot be owned by anyone, more so the Dharma. Sure you can use it, stylize it, package it, sell it, but you can't own it. People who package the Dharma for profit should rethink their Buddhist motivations.. if they're practicing Buddhists. You can own the book, the dvd, the cd, but not what's in it. You can stamp your name on it, but you can't say you own the knowledge. You can't own what wasn't originally yours.
Copyright laws are so obsolete, they should be rewritten. This perpetuates the thinking that education, or the spreading of knowledge is exclusive to those who have the opportunity to pay for it.
So the question whether downloading copyrighted materials for free is right or wrong.. if we're going to be moralistic about it.. this thinking/question itself is wrong. We need to change our minds about "packaging" public information and knowledge for profit. Is that even justifiable?
Do I think I'm stealing when I download stuff from this site? Hell no, even Buddha himself doesn't own the copyright to the Dharma.
All forms of ownership are simply delusional. How can we possibly own anything? How can anyone own land, resources, knowledge, action, etc, without first using brutal & selfish means to justify such a claim?
This planet is ours, but we do not exist apart from the whole.
This human world is now nothing but a business system which has sucked everyone into compliance. A system that demands absolute conformity to one ideal: profit.
When we seek to profit we seek to deceive & that is the essence of business.
All business systems, all forms of commerce are theft & for those within such a system to accuse others of theft is simply downright ignorance & complete hypocrisy.
Keep on sharing, just as our mother shares her fruits with us - freely.
interesting discussion! I'm glad and appreciate that I can find things for free. The books, dvd's, cd's are often very expensive. I buy too, mind you! The material should be provided at a lower price or for free, asking for donations e.g. The 10 day Vipassana silence retreat (G.S. Goenka) has been given for FREE for years. Students may donate. And it works. More and more centers are being founded. I reccommend this 10 day highly. www.dhamma.org - it's a great gift to self.
Brother,
Let's not worry about copyright. Actually, I would say the author had neither pay anything to use the Dharma and applied in his work to make money. Please, please to all authors, make money on those who can afford to pay, and be it an offer (Dharma) for those who couldn't afford it. In addition, not all publications are available geographically. Personally, after reading or listening to, the material downloaded from torrents, I would still prefer to keep 'a original copy' either a book or a disk (with copyright) if I find that it is worthy. I would either order it online or order it with a established bookstore.
So brother, keep it up.
My 10 cents worth...
I go through blogs like this, I browse books shops (2nd hand book shops provide that affordability of "legal" work many people are saying is too expensive) and i will go to free websites to look at content there.
Do I feel guilty about downloading? Well, I have mixed responses within myself, I can say that I can sympathise with both schools of thought here. But neither are right and neither are wrong in my opinion, together they make an interesting case.
The fact remains that we are in a situation where things are on the net, are available to be downloaded, are available in book stores. It's not a case of right or wrong but rather a case of simply being true.
So what do I do? I am thankful that this is the case. I'm thankful for the knowledge I get, whichever source it comes from.
I met a woman years ago who shared knowledge with me but refused to take payment. Her advice (for my soul and conscience) was to give something back to the universe in thanks. Go out and pick up some litter from the streets, be kind to someone, pay a compliment etc.
I don't think of downloading this as bad karma, not if you're truly thankful for the knowledge the universe has provided and in your own way give thanks for it...
These are only my thoughts and are in no way any attack on anything said before, please take them from the same place they were written from.
Although I frequently make use of torrents, I do so fully aware that it is stealing. Let us not delude ourselves that it is something else.
Post a Comment