Justifications for theft

[TeaElle]

*Originally posted by andymurph64 *
**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. **

This is slightly hijacking, but I’m curious – andymurph, all indications are that this was a very poor school. The financial condition of most schools is usually (usually) in step with the community in which they’re found: poor communities = poor schools and well-to-do communities = well-funded schools. So was the school where you were teaching an anomaly, or was it a reflection upon the community where it was located?

*Originally posted by andymurph64 *
**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. **

Just to be sure here: “it’s not the corporation’s problem if they wish for the school not to use it.” Which they are you talking about, the corporation or the parents?

*Originally posted by FDISK *
By stealing cable, I affect no one but myself, either negatively or positively.

Theft of services doesn’t become a “problem” only when that service is then completely denied to others. Just as shoplifting hurts everyone because prices are inflated to make up for the store’s losses, the costs associated with the incidental expenses that arise from stolen services are passed along. So by stealing cable, you are hurting the legitimate customers who have to pick up the cost of repair and maintenance on those lines that are providing your unpaid services. (To say nothing of the degradation of quality to the legitimate subscribers when illegal splices are run off of their lines.) Perhaps it’s only pennies per user but how many millions of people are legitimate cable subscribers in this country? Those pennies add up quickly.

*Originally posted by FDISK *
**Therefore, I am the only one concerned with the morality of my actions. **

That would be true if you lived in a vacuum. But chances are that others are, in one way or another, witnesses to your behavior. If you are a “it’s not really stealing” kind of theif and just one person chooses to follow your example, the problem has just doubled. Similarly, if someone is dissuaded from following your course of action, the morality “balance” if you will, has been improved. So your morality, your moral choices can easily affect others. That makes it more than just a personal concern.

*Originally posted by FDISK *
Also, I don’t see anyone claiming that harm occurs if I pirate a CD, for example, that I didn’t intend to buy in the first place. The problem is how to seperate those that didn’t intend to buy the CD from those who are using the pirated copy as a substitute good for the legitimate CD.

It’s rather simple: you draw the line and say that it’s wrong to have use of something that you did not come by legitimately.

If you walk into an unlocked, empty hotel room and sleep in it (even when it’s not going to be occupied) you have just broken the law. It does not matter that the room would’ve remained empty, it doesn’t matter that you didn’t break into it, it does not matter that your presence did not specifically prevent any specific other person from use of that room, you had no right to be there if you did not pay the hotel. “I don’t intend to pay for the hotel room” = “I have no right to be in the hotel room.” Just like “I don’t intend to pay for the pizza” = “I have no right to simply take and eat the pizza.” Or, more on point “I don’t intend to pay the theatre” = “I have no right to sit and watch the movie.”

“Intent to pay for” goods, services or commodities becomes completely and wholly irrelevant when you procure those goods, services or commodities anyway. Let’s play the substitution game again, and tell me how these two statements are different.

“I never intended to buy the Britney Spears CD. I’d never buy a Britney CD. So it doesn’t hurt Britney or her record company if I download it, they didn’t lose a sale. If they didn’t want her music to be pirated, they’d create trulyencrypted or copy-protected CDs.”

“I didn’t intend to pay to see Jackass, I didn’t have enough money to pay $7.50 to see it anyway. But there was no one at the box office and no one was looking so I walked into the theater and watched it without paying. Who did it hurt? If they didn’t want people to watch the movies for free, they’d be more careful about making sure that people couldn’t just walk in.”

Even though it can be reduced to a small digital file, music isn’t simply “intellectual property.” Music also happens to be traded on the open market as a commercial product. Ownership of it as a product entitles you to the rights to have it on a physical medium or as an electronic file. There are certainly means to legitimately procure music electronically but all of those means are controlled by the owners of that music as a commercial product.

Why is music – as a product – exempt from the same consideration of other products? What else would you take and keep for your own use without “intending to pay for it?” Anything you could get away with? Is that really the standard that you keep for yourself? Then why pay rent when you can squat? Why buy fruit when you can sneak into the orchard and pluck the fallen apples and pears from the ground? Why buy butter, jelly, honey, sugar, salt, pepper or other condiments when you can go to a buffet restaurant and stock up on all your needs with just a little stealthiness?

If you wouldn’t do those things but you would pirate software or music, why? Explain to me, carefully – as though I were a stupid 2 year old – what the difference is?

[Cheesesteak]

Intellectual property and physical property have always been treated differently. Even under copyright and patent law, your ownership of the information is limited. Limited in time and limited in scope. Fair use comes to mind… there is no such thing when discussing physical property. One cannot take a small piece of anothers property, even temporarily, under fair use.

Intellectual property is nothing more than information. The natural state of information is to be distributed and freely available to all. Copyright and patent laws allow the creators of that information to profit from their efforts, before the natural state comes to being.

Not to say that copyright violations aren’t wrong, but they are NOT the same as stealing physical property.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Telemark *
FDISK, I disagree. I don’t believe that any studies have shown much of anything. If you have good cites though I’d be glad to read them.

I posted the links below in a similar thread the other day: click here for the thread and excerpts.

E-Commerce News: Report: File Sharing Boosts Music Sales
Study says consumers buy CDs after hearing new bands online
MUSIC FILE-SHARING: IMPACTS ON THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

[David_B]

OK, time to catch up a bit.

FDISK had said:

We can all agree on what constitutes theft in regards to material goods. The issue is intangibles, such as a movie script, a book, or a movie. In my opinion, theft of an idea would be something like me finding a copy of the script for a movie you wrote, producing the movie before you could, and selling it. … If I had just read the script and stuffed it in my desk, never to be seen again, I would not have comitted any crime. You have not lost anything (material or utility), so no theft has occured.

Of course, that’s not anything like what we’re discussing. You found the script and just tucked it away. Quite different from, say, copying an article from a website and posting it on your own site or downloading CDs.

In my partial response to what you had said, I noted:

You have been going on and on about how it harms nobody if you steal a CD that you didn’t plan to buy anyway. I find it odd that you would want to steal something if you were so disinterested in it that you wouldn’t want to buy it. But that aside, you then said to stofsky:

you cannot see into the future and know that no one would purchase it.

Interesting. Now go and apply that to what you’ve been saying.

You replied:

A shirt is a physical good. Taking it necessarily deprives the owner of it. Downloading a CD does not in any way affect the owner’s ability to use or sell that CD. Fundamental difference.

Except you didn’t actually respond to what I said. What you are stealing has nothing to do with whether or not you might buy it in the future. The fact is that you want to be able to say that you definitely wouldn’t buy the CD ever (in which case I have to wonder why you’d want to steal it) but then you also want to say that somebody else cannot see the future and know for certain that something would not be bought. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

In a parallel discussion, I had said:

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

Mr2001 replied:

Merely asserting that doesn’t make it true.

Are you actually claiming that if you copy an article that I wrote, you have not violated my copyright and you have not stolen something that was mine?

You still have your articles, I have a duplicate of one of your articles, and we’re both earning extra ad revenue. We’re both better off.

ONLY according to your hypothetical example. As the owner of four different websites, I can tell you that your example is far from reality – click-thru rates, even for popular sites, generally suck. If somebody sees an article, they will read it there, but they are unlikely to say, “Gosh, that was great. I think I’ll go hike over to this other site to see what else he has to say.” I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it doesn’t happen to the degree you imply.

And, frankly, whether or not your hypothetical was true, it just doesn’t matter. It’s not up to you to make that decision. If I own the article, then you may ask me if I want it posted on your site – you may not simply do it without permission. That is copyright violation and theft.

What have you lost? Nothing. So nothing has been stolen from you. No theft occurred.

You stole my article. Even if I had no advertising or your hypothetical were true, that is theft enough. But with advertising, you stole money from me as well.

[David_B]

Phew. I thought I lost that post.

Anyway, one thing to add. I recommend people check out 10 Big Myths about copyright explained. Especially note #9: “It doesn’t hurt anybody – in fact it’s free advertising.”

[mangeorge]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**

I think you are absolutely right. Except why limit yourself to a potatoe or cheeseburger? Why not go to some $200 a plate restaurant and do the old “dine & dash”? Or why not steal a car if you really need to get somewhere, or just because you want it?

Please justify the “it’s ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family” mentality. **

There is a name for this kind of reasoning, but I don’t remember what it is. You’ve taken my arguement about a desperately hungry person stealing a potato to survive on through a cheeseburger, a gourmet meal, and then to the level of taking someone’s car for a joyride. Not a valid arguement, imo.
And stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family is, in itself, enough justification for me. To not steal in this situation would be a moral outrage. It’s important to remember that there’s no other way to get the bread.

No, Velma, I’m not going to give anything back to safeway. I didn’t borrow the spud, I stole it.
Just for perspective, I think taking two newspapers from a rack when you only pay for one is stealing. And morally wrong.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by tlw *
So by stealing cable, you are hurting the legitimate customers who have to pick up the cost of repair and maintenance on those lines that are providing your unpaid services.

No. If you were removed from the equation entirely, the legitimate customers would still be paying the same costs. You aren’t increasing anyone’s cable bill, you’re simply receiving a benefit without paying your share of the costs.

That said, I don’t condone interfering with property owned by the cable company.

**… hotel room … pizza … movie … Britney Spears CD … fruit …

If you wouldn’t do those things but you would pirate software or music, why? Explain to me, carefully – as though I were a stupid 2 year old – what the difference is? **

When you sneak into a hotel room, you are consuming a resource. Perhaps someone would have stayed in it, or perhaps it would have gone unused–but as long as you’re in there, no one else can use it. Each room occupied by a squatter is a room the hotel can’t rent to a paying customer.

Each theater seat occupied by someone who sneaks past security is a seat the theater can’t sell to someone else. You are consuming a resource.

Each fruit that falls off a tree in the orchard is a fruit the farmer can’t sell to juice makers or unsuspecting locals, or feed to goats, or whatever happens to that fruit. You are depriving the farmer of a resource.

It’s wrong to consume these resources without paying for them because they can only be consumed once.

On the other hand, when you download music that you wouldn’t have purchased, you aren’t depriving anyone of anything. Anyone else who wants the music can still get it. You are receiving a benefit at nobody’s expense.

Originally posted by David B
Are you actually claiming that if you copy an article that I wrote, you have not violated my copyright and you have not stolen something that was mine?

I agree that copying your article means violating your copyright. However, I do not agree that any “stealing” is involved.

If I pass you on the sidewalk and you’re whistling a tune, and I start whistling the same tune, have I “stolen” it? Of course not. You can still whistle it as long as you want.

[Alereon]

Super-reply…
Velma, tlw: You are confusing theft of material goods with “theft” of non-material goods and services. Should I be arrested for not subscribing to cable, on the grounds that by choosing not subscribe, I am raising the rates for those who DO subscribe? Of course not. It’s a service that one can choose to pay for. How is “stealing” cable any different? I don’t cause an additional cost to the cable company, and as I wouldn’t have paid for cable anyway, there is no net effect to the bottom line of the company or the rates legitimate subscribers pay.

tlw: It’s not my problem if someone sees me “stealing” cable and decides to do it to. I am not responsible for other people’s actions. They are independent people, and could just as easily decide that I’m an immoral jerk.

Again, CDs I download are not material goods. Analogies applying to material goods are not valid. Obviously if I stay in a hotel room without paying for it I incur additional costs on the owner of the hotel, thus causing him to lose money. If I download a Britney Spears CD, neither Ms. Spears or her publishers lose any money, nor the use of their materials. Therefore, my actions do not constitute theft. If you intend to buy the CD but opt to download the MP3 instead, THAT would be theft. But I and the vast majority of the rest of the public do not engage in such practices. The CD being copy protected or not has no bearing on whether downloading it is OK.

Your analogy with the movie theater is faulty. Whether you sneak into the theater or pay to get in legitimately, you have the exact same experience. This is not true with anything we are discussing. I don’t magically end up with a legit CD in a fancy CD case with liner notes and everything. The best you can do is an imperfectly burned CD, and a printout of the album cover. This does not constitute a substitute good for the VAST majority of people.

David B: I said “found” simply to avoid breaking and entering charges. It’s a proper analogy, as no one violated the integrity of Britney Spears’ house or her publisher’s computer systems by copying one of her CDs.

The problem is that when stealing the shirt in question, you destroy the ability of the owner to collect revenue from ANYONE. If you download a CD, at WORST you destroy the owner’s ability to collect revenue from YOU. You know for certain whether you’ll buy the shirt or not, just like you know if you’ll buy the CD or not. You just cannot know what anyone ELSE will do.

[Alereon]

David B: I’ve never said that downloading a CD wasn’t a copyright violation (though I have suggested that it shouldn’t be), but I maintain that it is NOT theft, and your link supports that idea. You have to lose something for it to be theft.

[David_B]

Sheesh. You guys just don’t get it. You do lose something when your copyright is violated (and, FDISK, I don’t know what you saw in that link that makes you think it supported your position). Mr2001, it’s not as simple as whistling a tune. I don’t make money off of whistling a tune – I do make money by writing articles. And the fact remains that it is something that I own and you are taking. That makes it theft.

FDISK, I still want to know why you would steal a CD that you wouldn’t otherwise buy, and how you can be so certain that you never would have bought it (I don’t know about you, but I have bought CDs that I thought there was no way I would have when I first heard songs off of them on the radio).

[Alereon]

David B: Feel free to tell us exactly WHAT Britney Spears loses when someone downloads one of her CDs. There are many reasons that one would download a CD. Perhaps I’ve got $30, but 5 CDs I want. I can buy two, download the rest, and buy the actual CDs later as money comes in. Or I could just say “This CD is not, under any circumstances, worth $15 to me.” The fact that I’m able to download the CD does not affect my purchasing decision, so how could it affect Britney Spears in any way?

Thought experiment: Should it be illegal to sell used CDs? Used CDs are a perfect replacement good for a new CD, and can be had for much less. If someone buys a CD, enjoys it for a few months, then sells it to someone else for $5, has that person stolen $15 from the record company, the value of the second person’s sale. How about if that second person is given the CD? How about if they borrow it? How is it any different from the above examples if they just DOWNLOAD it? In no case is the record company paid beyond the initial purchase. Should all of the above acts be illegal?

Disclaimer: FDISK would never purchase or listen to a Britney Spears CD. She has been uses for example purposes. Friends don’t let friends listen to Britney Spears.

[Velma]

*Originally posted by FDISK *
**Super-reply…
Velma, tlw: You are confusing theft of material goods with “theft” of non-material goods and services. Should I be arrested for not subscribing to cable, on the grounds that by choosing not subscribe, I am raising the rates for those who DO subscribe? Of course not. It’s a service that one can choose to pay for. How is “stealing” cable any different? I don’t cause an additional cost to the cable company, and as I wouldn’t have paid for cable anyway, there is no net effect to the bottom line of the company or the rates legitimate subscribers pay.

**

I’m not confusing the two kinds of theft, I understand the difference between stealing a physical good and stealing a service. I’m just saying that both are theft, and that difference does not justify stealing services. The cable company does give me the choice to pay for it, or not, they say that if I want the service I have to pay for it, or I can choose not to pay for it, and not get their service.

Just because it’s easy to steal services doesn’t mean it’s not stealing. The consequence of not wanting to pay for cable is not getting it for free, it’s not getting cable. The company that provides a service says, pay for cable or you can’t have it, and you say, I have found a way to get it without you hooking it up for me, but I still need you because I use your service. You are using their service without compensating them for it, when they have stated that they want to be compensated for it. This is stealing. It is their service, and they get to decide who uses it, and for how much. Now if you set up your own cable company, and found a way to get the channels without using them or their equipment at all, you have found a way to get cable without them that is not stealing, but I doubt you could do it for free. Do you see that you are taking advantage of a company that has real costs to maintain their service? They don’t give out free cable for a reason.

[andymurph64]

by tlw:
So was the school where you were teaching an anomaly, or was it a reflection upon the community where it was located?

Good question. The community was not rich but not overly poor either. Three neighboring states whith similar affluence of communities payed their teachers nearly twice as much and $$ per student nearly twice as much.

So, while the community was not richie rich, they did deliberately scimp on education. In fact, they seemed proud of the fact that their education costs were so much lower than neighbors.

Textbooks that I was asked to use were over 20 years old and held together mainly by copious amounts of tape. I was asked to teach a computer programming class with 5 old, tape (!) (you know - cassette tape drives that pre-date floppy drives) and no textbooks (this is where I photocopied entire books) with 30+ students per class. I was asked to teach software so that their students would have computer skills but Bill Gates was in diapers when these machines were the norm. They found a copy of ‘Multiplan’ as a spreadsheet.

Remember Multiplan?? No??? Well, it is a really old spreadsheet. Let’s leave it at that. Of course, they only had one copy so I had to pirate that also.

I tried the best I could mainly by stealing. My AV budget for the entire year was $27 and I couldn’t spend it on a lightbulb. I bought some blank tapes to record TV shows from home in order to use in class.

It was a complete freaking joke. It so turned me off of teaching, along with many, many other aspects I experienced.

If the community is that cheap, they deserve for their children to be ignoramuses. I would never condone stealing to help this community and am repulsed that I did.

I know, TMI. It’s nice to grump about it though

[Telemark]

In reference to buying some now and downloading the rest: Or, you could download them all and pay nothing. Many people do this, and Britney makes no money for her efforts.

You keep harping on the fact the owners of the copyright or the artists lose nothing physical so there is no harm. But the only thing they own by creating that music or information is that intangible, that intellectual property. Selling that intellectual property is the motivation.

You claim that you would buy two now and buy the rest later when you get money. How about if you buy two now and wait until you can afford the rest before downloading them. While your intentions may be noble, you’ve still deprived the owner of the use of your money while you have use of their music. They could use the money at the same time you are using their music. You are enjoying the fruits of their labor now, why shouldn’t they enjoy the fruits of your labor at the same time? That seems like an inequity to me.

And your example about reselling CDs is not relevant. The user bought a physical object and a license to use it. You can resell that all you want. If you ripped a copy of the CD and then sold the CD, that is plainly stealing, as you have stolen a use license.

I haven’t read your cites yet, but I will. Thanks for providing them. But it remains a side issue, as I maintain that it is the artist’s right, not the publics, to decide how to market their own product.

[Binarydrone]

This I am finding interesting. I would suggest that for this discussion it would help if we differentiate between immoral and illegal, and entertain the notion that it is possible for things that are illegal to not be immoral (as is the case IMHO with the actions of the OP).

*Originally posted by David B *
** So if you were in a country that had laws saying it was okay to rape a woman, as long as you forcibly marry her afterwards, you would say that the morality of that situation is okay? **

And

*Originally posted by Cheesesteak *
**Of course not, this is exactly my point. There is an absolute morality when it comes to rape, it is wrong, period. Any country that has laws allowing rape has immoral laws. **

These snippets of posts are of particular interest to me because the morality and legality of rape is actually relative. Allow me to explain (and I do want to throw in a disclaimer her, before the flames start).

On record, I will state that personally I find any form of non-consensual sexual contact to be vile. I also have an extremely conservative (err on the side of caution) view on what consent is.

That said, the fact is that the definition of “what is rape?” has varied from era to era and from culture to culture (conjugal duty, anyone?)

The point of this digression is that it seems to me that folks are making the leap that illegal=immoral in this thread. I must disagree.

I think that we can all agree that what andymurph64 did was illegal, but I would argue that it was moral. He was ,after all, stealing resources in order to educate children that otherwise would not have had this opportunity. I am sure that we can all think on many examples of acts that (while illegal) are in essence morel.

This, on the other hand, just makes me sad:

*Originally posted by andymurph64 *
** If the community is that cheap, they deserve for their children to be ignoramuses. I would never condone stealing to help this community and am repulsed that I did **

[dalovindj]

How about the inherant unfairness of the current distribution of wealth?

DaLovin’ Dj

[Alereon]

Velma: Welcome to a sticky moral situation. I maintain my position that it is not strictly theft, because my pirating of cable TV costs the cable company nothing, thus I can’t be considered to be stealing anything. It may, however, be immoral. It’s up the individual to decide whether they think it is immoral, and use that to base their actions. Now, if one somehow figured out a way to get phone service for free, that WOULD be stealing, because the phone company pays a direct cost to route your phone calls. YOU are costing them money, and if you don’t pay it, you are stealing. It doesn’t cost the cable company anything to have you hooked up to their network.

Telemark: Your arguments bolster a copyright infringment claim, but not theft. The worst you can accuse someone who downloads CDs of is going against the creator’s wishes for their creation, which is NOT theft. We could fill another GD thread on whether or not copyright law should exist as it does today, but having argued it several times, it will probably end up as a few pages of “You dirty pirate!” “You greedy bastard!”

[AZCowboy]

Binarydrone wrote:
I think that we can all agree that what andymurph64 did was illegal, but I would argue that it was moral. He was ,after all, stealing resources in order to educate children that otherwise would not have had this opportunity.

Sorry, I can’t agree. As a teacher, demonstrating character and ethical values, including respect for copyright laws (or laws in general), is more important than anything that could be in the textbook.

Aside: The fair use doctrine provides limitation on copyright in the case of non-commercial educational needs - was this a violation of copyright?

[Skammer]

I think Binarydrone has a point, although I disagree with his evaluation of the morality of the actions in the OP.

– Is downloading CDs you haven’t paid for, or stealing cable, or copying textbooks, really theft? FDISK says no. I don’t care; that’s not my point. Call it whatever you want.

– Are these actions immoral? Regardless of whether they can be defined as theft, yes they are immoral. For reasons enumerated well by Telemark and others. You are using what belongs to others for free, without permission.

Now FDISK will say that it’s up to the individual to decide what’s moral. I disagree with this; I believe morality is absolute. That’s why I don’t think using the copying the textbooks for the students is justifiable. It’s unlikely that either of is could be persuaded to an alternative view.

[andymurph64]

by AZcowboy
Aside: The fair use doctrine provides limitation on copyright in the case of non-commercial educational needs - was this a violation of copyright?

During college teaching prep classes, it was told to us several times that teachers have an excemption to the copyright laws. However, it applied only to material that you discovered in which you couldn’t order the material in a timely fashion and you could only use it one time. So, if the night before I saw something that would work great during class the next day then I could use it. However, if I incorporated it into my standard lesson plans, I was in violation.

Binarydrone, I understand what you are saying and felt much like you did. However, I must agree with AZCowboy in that what I did was not moral, or even helpful…

• The students were aware of what I was doing so I broadcast the accepance that this behavior was fine. They could take that lesson an apply it to their own lives.

• By doing this, I was allowing the community to be rewarded for their (in my opinion) criminal neglect of education. I get irritated by these articles and even commercials that show teachers spending their own money to buy classroom supplies. ** YOU ARE NOT HELPING! ** If the teachers would stop enabling the system, then people would become aware that something is wrong. By ‘making do’ we allow the community to escape from their responsibilities.
  Also, if I was caught, I would have been in trouble since the community would not have come to my rescue, I’m sure.

• by depriving authors of their due income, the field is not as lucrative and many people may not work on publishing more material. Who knows what great work was not done because the author did not see a reward in it? I brought this up as a personal experience in a previous post.