Justifications for theft

Great Debates
1

This has probably been done to death on here and there is currently a thread related to this but I did not wish to hijack. I am relatively new at this message board ‘thing’.

I am fascinated by arguments that people put forward for doing something they know is wrong. I used to be the king of this but now have completely changed my tune. I remember these justifications of mine:

  1. I taught high school in a poorer district. The district was not flush with cash and also did not seem to put a large value on education. I violated so many copyrights that it repulses me today. I photocopied entire BOOKS to give to classes among many other items. My justification? Just because these students are poorer and their community is unwilling to value education doesn’t mean these students should miss out on the best that can be offered.

  2. As a teacher in a poor district, my pay was squat. I still wanted software and computer games so I just pirated them. My justification? I was underpaid and so deserved them. If I was paid correctly then I could afford them but since I was being stole from, so could they. I was doing a service to society and much of it ‘volunteer’ since I was underpaid so the software programmers could donate it to me as a service to society.

  3. Staying on the subject of easily pirated items since that is what a person could steal without likelihood of being caught…Music and computer games that I did buy, if they sucked I felt the company ‘owed’ me a freebee since I bought a bad product and they wouldn’t allow me to return it.

I now never do these things. I am repulsed that I did do these things. People do unethical things and come up with justifications so they do not feel bad about themselves. “I am not a thief because…” logic. I have also noticed that my attitude changed shortly after the time I left teaching and my income rose dramatically…

My debate question is which Andymurph is more correct? The current me or the me back then?

2

I think they were both 100% absolutely correct. Just not at the same time.

I mean, in making personal decisions like this, we do try and work out a way to justify what we want to do. When the rest of society at large would agree (or should agree ;)) we would call it a rational decision. When they wouldn’t (or shouldn’t), we call it a rationalization. Of course, it is often only a “rationalization” in hindsight (or in someone else’s sight).

IMO people never do what they (as an individual) think is wrong. They only do things that they know other people would think are wrong (at worst) and then justify it to themselves.

We wouldn’t, for example, take these arguments to court, or to a national forum, et cetera. They are only meant to apply to ourselves. And yet you might say, “But that is only so you don’t feel guilty about doing something you know is wrong.” But is that so? I don’t think it is. Like I said: in my mind, you always do what you think is morally justified. Just that sometimes you know others would disagree, and sometimes you later come to disagree with yourself.

I wouldn’t be too disgusted with the andymurph of yore. He’s just this guy, you know?

We have a figure of speech that involves saying a person has lied to himself. But come now, lie to one’s self? Where can you hide the truth? —In a rationalization? No. The moral picture is not a purely logical analyzation of all behavior, it is not a snapshot of all potential actions.

I maintain: if you did it, it was moral to you at the time. There is no reason to distinguish between a rational decision and a rationalized one, only something I believed was ok at the time and something I didn’t.

Consider: would you punish yourself for those actions? And what could this hope to achieve if, by the time you would enact the punishment, you are already reformed (else how could you stand and punish yourself)?

3

I believe you misspelled “copyright violation” in the thread title.

Theft is to copyright violation as animal cruelty is to jaywalking. They’re both illegal, but the similarity ends there.

4

That said, I don’t believe your past actions were immoral.

You were never part of the market for those textbooks and software to begin with, because you didn’t have the funds. If pirating were impossible, you still wouldn’t have bought them; therefore, your act of copyright violation didn’t even cause any potential harm to the copyright holders. You gained something, but they lost nothing.

Indeed, you could make the argument that copying materials for education falls under fair use exemptions. (Though that isn’t a convincing argument for copying an entire textbook, you can still copy limited portions of the book legally.)

5

If I were really hungry, and couldn’t get it any other way, I’d steal a potato. Or a cheeseburger. In a New York minute. And not feel guilty about it.
So I see no real problem with your solution to a problem not of your own making.
Peace,
mangeorge

6

Mr2001 said:

Not so fast.

If you violate my copyright by, for example, taking the articles from my website and posting them on yours, you are, in fact, stealing from me. Why? Because my website is supported by advertising, which I am now not getting. Instead, you are (potentially) getting those dollars. In other words, you have stolen money from me.

Similarly, by downloading music without paying for it, you are stealing from the artist and the record company. By copying books intead of buying them, you are stealing from the publisher and author.

You may want to debate whether it’s justified (which is what this thread is about), but don’t try to muddy the waters by acting as if copyright violation is not theft. It’s not as direct as stealing money directly from somebody’s wallet, but the end result can certainly be the same.

7

Definitions:
-Theft: Depriving an owner of the use or income from a product that they would have otherwise recieved.
-Piracy: Using software and music without permission of or paying the owner.

  1. What is more important, the proper education of your students, or “doing the right thing” to a large company? IMHO, the former. I believe that it is unconscionable to put the interests of a corporation above those of your students.

  2. You did nothing wrong in this instance either. You couldn’t afford the software in question, thus by pirating it you didn’t affect the income of the company in any way. If you have the financial means to buy software and you choose to pirate it instead, that is theft, since you are depriving the authors of income they would otherwise have recieved. In this case, the authors would not have been paid anyway, so its a moot point.

  3. Demos and reviews exist to allow you to preview a game. If you buy a game and don’t like it, you have no one to blame but yourself. You don’t get to steal stuff due to a feeling of moral outrage or being owed something.

On preview:
David B: Theft requires the owner to lose money or use of their goods. If you download software that you cannot afford and would not have otherwise purchased, you have not affected the company’s bottom line in any way, thus have not committed theft.

8

In my dictionary (Webster’s New World, 3rd Edition), theft is defined as the act of stealing. What is stealing? Let’s see:

steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another’s property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner

(Emphasis added)

Looks to me like your claim that what was called “copyright violation” isn’t really theft is without much standing.

9

I agree with David B which seems to put is in the minority around here. Just because you have a good motive doesn’t make an immoral act acceptable. The ends doesn’t justify the means.

Seems to me that the proper education of your students wouldn’t include teaching them to steal by violating copyright protections.

Even if this is true, it is irrevelant. I can’t afford cable TV; does that make it okay for me to steal it with an illegal descrambler? If you can’t afford to buy the software, then you can’t use it. That’s not a justification for stealing.

andymurph64, congratulations on your reformation. I think your views now are correct.

10

That’s one potential outcome.

Here’s another: Suppose I only post one of your articles on my site, with a link back to your site saying “Click here for more great articles by the same author.” Since my site is wildly popular, and all my readers love your articles, traffic to your site skyrockets, and you end up earning twice as much ad revenue.

That’s what makes theft different from copyright violation. If you steal something from me, there’s no doubt that I’ve lost whatever you stole.

11

David B: Theft REQUIRES that the owner be denied the use of their property, or be denied the income from their property. Theft of ideas would be something like plagiarism, or stealing a movie script. Something that HARMS the owner in some calculable way. If I pirate some random software that I wasn’t intending to purchase anyway, I do not deprive the company that made it from income, prevent them from selling it to legitimate purchasers, or affect their use of their property in any way. Therefore, a theft has not been comitted.

Skammer: The point is that it’s not an immoral act. You hurt no one, and you cause a definite benefit for the students. It’s a personal choice whether you find pirating cable TV or software to be immoral or wrong. You harm no one and do not affect the company’s bottom line, therefore you’re the only party concerned with whether it is right or wrong.

12

FDISK: Do you believe that owners have no rights over the control of their property? If I broke into your home while you were at work and watched your TV until you came home, would that be okay?

13

cckerberos: In that case, you deny me the use of my property for the period that you used it, without my permission. If I download a CD, I don’t prevent the owner from selling it or doing whatever else they want with it.

14

The point here is intent. If I pirate a CD that I would not have otherwise bought, I am simply violating copyright. If I pirate a CD I would have bought had the pirated version not been available, the vendor is deprived of the money I would have paid for it, which makes it theft.

Is my motivation of pirating to save money or to get something I’m not willing to buy?

Of course, intent is hard to argue and probably near impossible to prove.

15

Skammer said:

Just so there is no misunderstanding here – I have not actually taken a position in this thread with regards to whether or not the actions described in the OP are justified. I have merely clarified that copyright violation is a form of theft.

Mr2001 said:

And you have still violated my copyright and stolen something that was mine.

And there is no doubt in this example either. The end result that you describe does not make it okay nor does it change the fact that it was theft to begin with. Believe me, I’ve had to deal with enough real life situations where people try to justify stealing my work in exactly the same way you have. In fact, I’ve had entire websites shut down because they refused to remove material they had stolen from me.
FDISK said:

Did you miss the definition I posted above? There is no such requirement. On what basis are you making your claim?

Nice try at rationalization, but it does not change the fact that you have stolen something.

16

Minor correction to what I wrote above: I’ve actually only had one website shut down for failure to remove material they’d stolen from me. Everybody else I’ve dealt with eventually came to their senses before anything further was necessary. Most of them, like some of the people in this thread, thought it was okay as long as they put a link back to the original article and were stunned to find out that when my site says copying articles is not allowed without permission, I actually meant it!

17

In my last line of the OP I expressed ‘doubt’ as to the sincerity of my reformation. I noticed that once I felt fairly paid and valued by society, my attitude changed. If I was still in teaching, I would probably not have changed. If I suddenly was thrust back into a similar situation, would I lapse? I like to think I wouldn’t and I don’t think I would but have doubts.

I see the argument that since someone had no intention of buying software or music that it isn’t really stealing. I have a question for people supporting this argument. How do you know you wouldn’t buy it? A person could get comfortable with that argument and take the software or music continuously where, if deprived of them, would actually buy one. How do you know?

18

I firmly believed this at the time. I have problems with this logic now. These items that I violated copyright were not that expensive. It wasn’t as if the authors and publishing company were demanding high $$$ for their work. I worked in a school district where my ** overhead light bulb ** went out during September and the school would not replace it until next school year. That is how the community valued the education of their children as if my obscenely low salary wasn’t enough.

My logic now is that if the parents and community are unwilling to spend $5 for a light bulb that blew during the first 3 weeks of the school year and are unwilling to pay a modest amount for copyrighted materials that would be useful for their children then it is not the corporations problem if they wish for the school not to use it. The corporation (author/publisher) is not the villian here.

19

FDISK said:

It is? Do you consider this true for all moral issues? Or, to be fair, you seem to be saying that if an particular action harms no one and may even benefit some, then the morality of the action is up to the person committing it. Is that a fair appraisal of your position?

I don’t buy it:

  1. The notion that pirating software or music, photocopying books and stealing cable that you don’t intend to pay for anyway doesn’t harm anyone is debatable, as we have seen above.

  2. As andymurph alludes to above, why should I intend to pay for it ever, at all, if I can get it for free. “I’m not stealing, I wouldn’t have paid for it anyway.” Well, if you’re not willing to pay, you shouldn’t have it. If you want it, you should pay. It’s easy to fool yourself.

  3. Hi, Opal!

I still think that copying books for students, even with the noblest intent, is saying to them “it’s okay to steal if you can’t afford something.” That’s a dangerous lesson, moreso becuase it becomes the argument I’ve seen here: “it’s okay to steal something you wouldn’t pay for anyway, as long as there is a limitless supply.”

20

FDISK, if I walk into Saks and just for shits and giggles take a $500 shirt that nobody would ever buy and would end in the dustbin, is that theft?