I haven't given it a thought in years. Does file-sharing violate the precepts?

I think the arguments in favor of it are well-known. I regard most of the downloading I do as akin to borrowing from the library. Having wider access has actually made me more likely to spend money on artists I really like. It seems that the technology itself has just made the question of ownership of information very hazy. But I'm interested in fresh input.

The only thing I definitely want to state clearly is that NO! file sharing is not stealing, just as picking something up from the ground is not stealing. In a certain context, picking something up from the ground might constitute stealing, but that does not mean you can equate the two. So certain files shared a certain way may constitute a moral problem, but you certainly can't say file sharing is stealing.

I realize this may not be exactly the kind of answer you're looking for, but I feel that bringing it down to basic terms first helps take some of the power away from the industry's attempt at creating fear through confusion, lashing out at citizens using gross oversimplification.

The precepts talk about "taking what is not given", and I always thought that included picking stuff up from the ground.

This interpretation would seem to be from the purist end of the spectrum, which is helpful. But if I pick up a dollar from the ground, then I have it and nobody else does. In the case of digital information, it can be copied infinitely. Nobody is deprived of having the data. In fact, it's shared even more. In a few cases, the creator may be deprived of payment, but those may be exceptions. Many times, a downloader could just borrow it some other way, or would just look for other free options. So, I agree with Dauphin that stealing is probably too strong a term for what most downloaders are doing. And from the point of view of legality, I would not be in favor of criminalizing file sharing.

On the other hand, "not taking what is not given" seems to suggest a greater challenge to let go of taking almost to the point of letting go of having altogether. I think this is where my question comes from. It's not that I'm stealing, but that I'm consuming.

It's interesting that the file-sharing phenomenon has had so much influence, and the end-result seems to be much more voluntary sharing from writers, musicians, etc. Most have found other ways to monetize their work. There may be fewer making millions, but my guess is there are many more finding an audience than they might under conventional capitalist circumstances. This seems like a pretty wholesome outcome.

Edit: figuring out the formatting.

How's the artist supposed to make a living if 10 people buy his record instead of 10million?

His recordings are his work. He trains his voice over many years (and pays a teacher for this), he learns his instrument over many years (and pays a teacher for this), he gets a manager (and pays again), he organizes his gigs (more time and commitment), he pays for advertising.... there's lots in it. Now you're happy for him not to earn anything?

I honestly don't mind if people do it or not. But you're lying to yourselves.

Well, I wouldn't be bringing up the discussion here if I were actually lying to myself. I understand your disdain, but you're oversimplifying. There seems to be no consensus among musicians about the pros and cons of downloading. Recent data shows that downloaders spend more on music and movies.

Personally, I don't download music anyway because it's all on youtube - usually posted by the musicians themselves - or myspace, or spotify. Mostly I use filesharing to watch tv. I think it would cost me about $80/month to get cable so I could watch Breaking Bad! Also, Netflix doesn't carry obscure films. Demonoid does.

For me to be strictly ethical with no downloading, I would have to all but give up music, films, and even books. Maybe I should. By the same token, I could make a strong argument that cars are evil. Does that mean that depriving myself of transportation would make me more virtuous? It wouldn't save the planet, for sure. So, the compromise I make is to try to drive and download mindfully. I should probably do less of both.

All this came to mind for me because I heard a dharma talk about "perfecting sila." I'm trying to imagine what that would look like.

I thought that at first also. It's just worded in a weird way. If you literally don't take what is not given, then you won't be able to wash your hands or robes with soap, unless someone is right there to hand you the soap. If you want to clear a path to your hut, you're out of luck unless someone hands you the broom each time. And forget about trying to clear a stone from your path by "taking" it into your hand.

Still, the purist interpretation probably makes some sense in the case of monks; but as a layperson, I would find it hard to believe that I'm not supposed to ever pick up anything or take anything into my hand that is not given.

Precept against taking what isn't given is really, really, absurdly difficult to observe in the strict interpretation. Even figuring out who owns digital media can be a difficult task.

But I will say this, letting go of the file-sharing question is an opportunity to practice abandoning attachments.