Sharing turned stealing

In a recent seminar at UCLA, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R.

Gonzales encouraged young people to reject illegal file sharing --

the use of online networks to share music, movies, etc., without

paying for the product.

The Recording Industry Assn. of America has filed suit against a

number of computer users, accusing them of illegally downloading

music, and President Bush recently signed legislation making it

illegal to videotape a movie in a theater with the purpose of

pirating it. In response, a number of participants said they didn’t

believe that file sharing is wrong (citing the profits made by music

retailers and movie studios) and that it is here to stay, regardless

of its legality.

How much emphasis should the government place on pursuing illegal

downloaders? Should it even be a priority?

I believe we should seldom think, “If only everyone else could be

like me!” And we probably should never say that. But, in this case,

if everyone else were as technologically challenged as I am, this

would not be a problem.

I would not know where to begin file sharing, and videotaping a

movie in a theater has never occurred to me. If it did, my past

associations with musicians and performers would keep me from wanting

to cheat them.

I could not download music if my life depended on it; if I could,

“It’s illegal!” would immediately occur to me, as would awareness

that I’d not want others stealing from me like that.

This is not because I am any more moral than desiring to “do unto

others ... (Luke 6:31).” I am neither so righteous nor ignorant, but

I am technologically challenged! So, if everyone else were like me,

our government wouldn’t have to worry about this one. With all the

concerns government must prioritize, like peace and justice, that

seems a blessing.

However, my son -- who turns 11 on Monday -- is technologically

astute. I suspect he could accomplish any, maybe all, of these

illegal activities without thinking or working too hard. Clearly it

is up to parents, primarily, and also to faith communities and

schools, to teach people like Don Haynes to get their music and

movies the traditional way: by making money to purchase what they

want to look at or listen to.

Or am I now being old fashioned, as well as technologically

challenged?

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael &

All Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

I’m one of the few people at the gym still using a CD player. I

haven’t had much interest in the latest music technology, but I have

been concerned about the safety of my modest retirement savings after

news of corporate scandals, followed by so little accountability or

reform.

Financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn has brought to light how

many middle-class Americans have invested their savings in mutual

funds through employer-sponsored plans, instead of pensions or other

retirement options.

This seems like an ordinary savings opportunity -- an employee

benefit with automatic deductions and tax benefits for choosing to

invest money each month. Yet there are few regulations, and most

employees are no match for corrupt CEOs and investment firms. This is

a problem the attorney general could address.

Government resources should be directed toward rehabilitative

services, safer communities and improved healthcare for all. They

should also be directed toward ensuring that highly profitable

companies pay a sustainable living wage rather than minimum wage, and

ensuring better care for children. Improved education, help for the

homeless and hungry, care of the environment and other worthwhile

endeavors should be targeted as well.

I doubt many people see the problem of people who illegally

download music or movies as one of the most serious issues facing us,

or one that needs to occupy the attorney general’s time.

There is no doubt in my mind that people own their creative work

and do have a right to receive compensation for it. Yet it is also

clear that the music and film industry will need to find new ways of

operating to respond to the revolution in technology and

distribution. I don’t believe that any amount of education or legal

threats will get the toothpaste back in the tube.

In Zen, we work with temptations to steal by encouraging ourselves

to be more aware. Why do I want this? What are my needs or desires?

Why don’t I want to pay for it or obtain it through proper means?

What are the underlying attitudes, judgments, excuses or

rationalizations coming up? Is it possible to be truly at peace

surrounded by objects so encumbered? Are these items clear, simple

and beautiful, or do they have a shadow around them that cannot be

shaken?

I counseled someone who finally had to admit that she could not

look at a watercolor in her office without remembering that she had

taken it from a college roommate 20 years ago. The circumstances (and

the feng shui, and her conscience) kept nudging her and interfering

with her enjoyment of it. In the end, it had to be returned or

donated to a good cause. After stealing it, she could not possess it.

It could never be hers under these circumstances.

We use the precept “do not steal” as a reminder that there is no

stealing. It helps us to be aware and invites us to a deeper

dimension beyond ownership and in harmony with all things. Those who

download music and video files are called to discover how this

affects them and others. Those in power will also need to listen and

use their opportunity to serve the human family, rather than big

business.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

The issue with file sharing and the expansion of the Internet is

an enormous challenge for traditional companies that publish and

produce books, movies, art and music. The moral dilemma is

complicated by a feeling among many that these companies are already

making enough money and that many of their products are overpriced.

This perception makes it easy for the person illegally downloading

files to justify their actions as a protest and not a theft.

This is especially true for frugal individuals who see no crime in

copying software and other media. After all, it’s for their private

use and they’re not intending to resell it to make a profit.

In spiritual terms, I refer to this as a moral point that floats

to a level of justification which circumvents principles in favor of

convenience. If no one is looking, what does it hurt? This is a

problem not only in the theft of intellectual property, but also in

the obvious global greed of many major corporations. It’s a moral

meltdown plaguing our culture and creating a new form of materialism

that weakens all who participate.

It takes a different kind of thinking to live in spiritual

principles, a willingness to take responsibility for behavior and

intent. To be honest in all circumstances and to know that there is a

law of reciprocity -- that life is a direct experience of your

beliefs.

God doesn’t play favorites. The Divine is forever creating our

outcomes according to what we think, how we behave and what we

believe. If you have mistakenly bought into the moral convenience

argument, I suggest you stop and rethink how you want to live your

life. There are no shortcuts to integrity. I’ve made mistakes and I

have changed my mind.

At our center, we have made a conscious choice to comply with all

copyright laws. Do we sometimes make mistakes? Are we tempted to

break the law? Sometimes, but we avoid these dilemmas by following

the spiritual principles we teach and that guide us to a higher

understanding that our lives are not about materialism, greed or

status.

Life is about love, compassion, service and joy. If God creates

all of life in direct response to our beliefs, then I say, let us

up-level our beliefs and create a world where sharing is not a crime

and all are cared for.

SENIOR PASTOR

JAMES TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

The Jewish tradition identifies theft as the crime that brought on

the flood of Noah’s time. The stealing was indeed rampant, but it

consisted of taking only small items, worth less than a prutah, or

penny. Yet this trifling was so abhorrent to God that he inflicted an

ultimate punishment.

Why a penalty seemingly so disproportionate to the crime? Because

it is the small thefts that eat away at an individual’s moral fiber

and hence erode a society’s ethical foundation.

“What is the difference?” we say. “I am only stealing something

small. It hardly qualifies as theft. No one will miss it. A hotel

towel, an airline pillow, that line on my tax form.”

A little here and a little there.

We are what we do. The more we do something, the more we become

what we have done. One who steals becomes a thief in short order, and

his thievery spills over into other areas. The more he takes what is

not his, the less resistant he is to other temptations.

The test is: Will the owner feel loss and pain over my action? If

the honest answer is yet, it should move one’s conscience.

Most of us do not engage in spectacular violations of the law. It

is the seemingly paltry offenses that nibble away at who we should

be.

Oscar Wilde reflected on his life from prison: “I forgot that

every little action of the common day makes or unmakes character.”

Character develops or contracts not in giant leaps but in small

steps. Rationalizations like “everybody does it,” or “it’s really not

that illegal” or “they are so greedy, they deserve to be ripped off!”

are not consonant with refinement of character.

There is no asterisk alongside the Eighth Commandment that allows

theft in the event you feel it to be acceptable.

A construction worker was building a high-rise. He took a great

risk and removed his safety apparatus for a moment while reaching for

a pipe. At that moment, a fellow worker bumped the beam on which he

stood and the worker fell 100 feet, landing face down in a pile of

dirt. The paramedics found the man miraculously still breathing and

placed him on a stretcher.

As he was being carried to the ambulance, the man was able to open

his mouth and even to utter a few words. What did he say to those

carrying the stretcher, this man who had somehow survived a fall of

100 feet?

“Don’t drop me!”

It is not the 100-foot falls but the three-foot falls that we

ought to worry about and which cause so much harm.

We should sweat the small stuff!

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach