All these cents and fraction of cents/cents add up though. It is not just your soda that has this theft markup. Pretty much every single time you are buying something from clothes to food to electronics you are being charged extra due to this loss. Obviously with more expensive items, the markup will be more. It will add up over the course of a year for sure. So just how much per year is “socially” acceptable?
Jorge_Burrito Obviously the situation as is is acceptable to all involved because we accept it. But the reality is, stores want to stop theft as much as they can, but they also account for it. Pretty much you can walk out of a grocery store without paying for something and not be questioned because the potential aggravation is not worth it for the store. It costs them more to enforce anti-shoplifting measures than to stop someone from snagging a Snickers. When I worked at a Grocery store we were trained specifically to leave shoplifters alone. If we suspected them, we could report it to a superior but they felt the risk of being detained by a litigious customer was greater than the nominal loss of some of the items in the store. This was in a wealthy suburb in New Jersey though. The policy might be different in stores in the ghetto, but I don’t really notice trump tight security there either.
So obviously the situation is pretty acceptable to everyone involved.
Oh, I never said I agreed with the logic. I’m essentially repeating what friends and family say. I’ve played with a few bands before and looked into the music industry, I know all too well that artists struggle. But when people look at say Green Day and think “Now, do I really want to spend money on the album when I can just download it.” It does cross their mind that when they see Billie Joe Armstrong on the TV, he doesn’t really look like pauper. People don’t know about the struggling actors and musicians, they’re not popular enough. You need to be making money to be popular.
A person who thinks he needs to steal a soft drink must have very low self esteem. That is so “low class.”
What a dirt-bag, Philistine, jerk-off, piece-of-shit, nose-pickin’, booger-eatin,’ hammerhead, parasitic, mouth-breathin,’ elevator-fartin,’ sister-screwin,’ daughter-touchin,’ dumb ass. :mad: I bet he’s a democrat too. 
It’s not like he is stealing to feed a family.
Besides, water is better for you than soda.
Guess what, his kid will have low self esteem too.
Sorry, that is not correct. I’m sure she does already.
She’ll be whoring for meth by the time she is 13.
I guess everyone realizes the rest of us are paying for that prick to steal. The “faceless corporation” will pass the cost on to the other customers and their stock will not suffer for it.
Not necessarily. A prime example being TLC. The album, CrazySexyCool sold 11 million copies, earned them 2 Grammy awards and all 4 of the singles made the top 5. The girls each earned less than $35,000 a year in that period.
Heaven forbid if you ever find yourself in civil court for copyright infringement, “stealing” is the exact word counsel for plaintiff will use in the voir dire.
They won’t wait for the trial to start. They won’t even wait until the jury is seated.
They will label the defendant a low-life-scum-thief right off the bat before the judge even pours his vodka from the water pitcher.
I know what they call it, but it doesn’t make it true.
Here’s a list of petty thefts, please everyone think about if you’re guilty of any of these crimes. If so you may also be labelled a “douche” according to some.
- Stealing pop as per the OP
- Stealing internet from an adjacent apartment.
- Downloading illegally mp3s or videos
- Watching copyrighted content on Youtube
- Dubbing a CD from the library
- Having someone tape a TV show for you to watch later
- Taking a pencil / other small items from work.
- Printing copyrighted song lyrics on the internet.
- Using computer “abandonware” video games that still have copyright (video game emulators)
- Going over the speed limit by even 2 kph without being caught.
I know I’m guilty of some of these. I don’t think it’s that cool to teach children to do this stuff, but I’m in serious doubt the child will become a criminal.
- Stealing pop as per the OP
Nope.
- Stealing internet from an adjacent apartment.
Nope.
- Downloading illegally mp3s or videos
Not theft.
- Watching copyrighted content on Youtube
Not theft.
- Dubbing a CD from the library
Not theft.
- Having someone tape a TV show for you to watch later
Not theft.
- Taking a pencil / other small items from work.
Nope. Although I did plug my phone charger in without asking, so I guess you got me there.
- Printing copyrighted song lyrics on the internet.
Not theft.
- Using computer “abandonware” video games that still have copyright (video game emulators)
Not theft.
- Going over the speed limit by even 2 kph without being caught.
Are you serious?
LOL, I like the bit about how everyone is justifying piracy as not theft, even though most pirates are dealing with tens to even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lost revenue to the companies they are pirating from. Pirating photoshop hurts Adobe’s bottom line more than stealing a large coke from McDonald’s hurts theirs.
Who do you think owns corporations? Individuals.
This. I think there’s a significant difference between surreptitiously stealing an almost valueless item because you noticed you could get away with it, and explicitly teaching your child that it’s acceptable.
I don’t think even trivial petty theft is a good idea, but let’s face it, it’s petty. Instructing a child in the ways and means of petty theft, though, sounds like a bad idea.
Be that as it may, a corporation is still not an individual.
I for one think we are pitting the wrong person. Really we should be pitting the person whose balls/ovaries were too tiny to speak up for what is right!
First of all, properly defining is not the same thing as justifying.
Second of all, when a company produces an individual tangible product, there is a production cost that goes along with it. Man-hours, raw materials, etc. This cost is attached to every individual item produced, separate from the initial costs of R&D, building production facilities, etc.
The only way they can recoup this cost is if they sell the item. If you steal the item, they can’t sell it, and therefor won’t recoup that money. It’s not just an issue of stealing vs. buying. If you steal it instead of buying it, then they can not only not recoup their production cost, but are also out the profit they tacked on to the price. But if you had no intention of buying it, even if you weren’t able to steal it, they still lose the money they spent producing it. They lose either way.
Piracy, however, is completely different (hence the different name). They can sell one copy or a million, and their production cost on the intellectual property (not the media it’s sold on) remain the same. Just because Adobe charges $600 for a copy of Photoshop, doesn’t mean every time someone downloads it illegally, they’re out $600. Unlike when someone steals a tangible item, like for instance a Coke, they only lose money when the person doing the downloading would be able and willing to buy the software at the price they set, if they they weren’t able and willing to pirate it.
That’s why stealing and piracy are different things.
If you steal from a corporation, you are stealing from individuals.
What nonsense. The production cost is figured over the aggregate, and the distribution channels required to distribute the software have a fixed cost associated with them.
I think that this is a pointless nitpick and as pointed out above in the eyes of the law, piracy is stealing. Whether your cost goes into paying machinists to stamp out parts or paying a software developer to make plugins for Photoshop, either way they both have an attendant production cost. The cost as it concerns soda is essentially the same here, transportation and distribution eat up the vast majority of the cost of a soda.
Piracy isn’t stealing in the eyes of the law. If a person shoplifts a CD, they are stealing, and if caught can be charged with theft or larceny. If a person downloads an mp3 they haven’t payed for, that’s copyright infringement, and likely a civil matter. And even if it is treated as a crime, they wouldn’t be charged with theft, but instead copyright infringement. Because that’s what it is.
As for the rest: I never said there are no production costs involved in software development. If that’s what you got out of what I wrote, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Maybe an example will help:
Situation 1:
Bob has $600. He wants a copy of Adobe Photoshop. He’s about to buy it, but then he finds out he can get it for free by pirating it. He does this and Adobe is out $600.
Situation 2:
Bob has $4. He has no intention of buying Adobe Photoshop, because he can’t afford it. It doesn’t matter what he does now, because Adobe isn’t getting any money out of him whether he pirates their software or not.
You see? It’s different. In the situation of stealing, it doesn’t matter if the thief was willing or able to buy the product, because the company selling it still loses the opportunity to sell the item to someone else.
I understand you perfectly. I just disagree that it’s a valid argument.
Calling piracy theft is like saying violating a trademark is copyright infringement, or saying jay walking is theft because of “stealing the right of way”. It’s a god damn bullshit labeling and you know it.