c. However, unlike other forms of property, the construct of intellectual property exists solely “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” (quoting the U.S. Constitution).
For this reason, intellectual property is not an absolute right unto itself. Unlike other forms of property, pieces of intellectual property are placed in the public domain after a period of exclusive ownership, so that they may become a freely usable part of, and benefit to, the larger culture.
I’d agree with this for most forms of property, but it is demonstrably false for intellectual property. Witness Stephen King’s The Plant, which people are freely allowed to steal, yet more than 75% have paid for so far. Even if only 75% of people who download your work pay for it, that certainly still gives you incentive to produce. Also witness the great success of the free software movement, where being able to freely “steal” (AKA share) intellectual property is the fundamental premise of the movement.
It seems to me that labeling every violation of our current idea of intellectual property as stealing is counterproductive, in that it precludes any debate on whether there may be an alternate formulation for intellectual property that better promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. The two examples I’ve cited lead me to believe that this may be the case, although I acknowledge that we are still early on in seeing what effect the Internet will have in this area.
In fact, people are not “free” to steal this work in the sense that there are no consequences for such action. King has stated quite clearly that if more the 25% of people who download the work do not pay for it he will not publish any other work in this form. This actually argues quite strongly that King’s incentive to produce and distribute his work is directly tied to the idea that it not be accessed without his receiving payment.
I am not certain whether you are seaking of shareware, in which case you are misrepresenting the concept, or freetware, in which case there is no theft involved.
Shareware, in fact, is very much based upon the idea that intellectual effort should be rewarded with cash. It simply chooses a non-standard distribution mechanism. Generally a trial version of a product is offered for free evaluation with an understanding that the program be purchased if it proves useful. Often additional updates/support are available for registered users.
Freeware is offered free. It is not possible to steal freeware, since it is offered freely to any who wish it. It is difficult to generalize about freeware, since it represents a wide range of products and development cycles, but in many cases the intellectual effort behind the software has already been rewarded before the product is offered for free distribution. Regardless, the fact that some things are given free does not invalidate the idea that expectation of financial reward is a motivational factor. If a musician gives a free concert in the park it does not mean that he does not care whether he is paid for his next performance.
Mr. Feely, If Mr. King chooses to distribute his IP through a shareware scheme, that’s his right. If creators of software give it away for free or as shareware, that’s their right. Neither of those situations makes a case for allowing people who don’t choose to offer their property in that manner to be the victims of theft.
By the way, Mr. Feely, you are correct about your point #c. I’m not sure if you’re just making my original statement more accurate or attempting to dispute it. I read it as an accuracy-enhancer. True?
Ok it’s stealing. The question in the OP. was "*Here is my question. What is so wrong with stealing? *
Surely you can see that a lot of people realise that it is theft but still use it .
A lot of the reasons people have given you(albeit from a different p.o.v. from me) already in this and other threads are why I don’t mind breaking the law in this situation . *
*I am not trying to justify it , just trying to show why I consider this particular law a law I’m comfortable in breaking.
Stealing often leads to retaliatory violence (or getting your ass kicked, as stated by a previous poster). It kind of reminds me of animals (usually male) defending a territory that they have claimed and marked against any encroaching males.
Societies that introduce laws to prevent stealing are probably trying to reduce this retaliatory violence and impose order upon chaos. I think there are probably tomes that legally define property, and what entails stealing of that property.
And then again, there is that old saying that possession is nine/tenths of the law.
There are three basic sorts of interaction: positive-, zero- and negative-sum games.
Positive-sum games like exchange or friendship involve more things that people like at the end of the interaction.
Negative-sum games involve less things that people value at the end of the interaction.
With theft, resources are used in preventing or attempting to prevent theft. These resources could have been used to produce things that people like (goods, feelings of security, leisure etc)
Theft is immoral in a straightforward sense according to a number of moral and ideological standpoints:
Kantian: if everyone stole, we would have less stuff. If no-one did, we would have more.
Paretian: we could all be better off if no-one stole.
Socialist: the contribution of the thief is negative.
Contractarian: we would all agree not to steal if such an agreement were binding since we would expect to be better off.
Utilitarian: since more stuff we like could be produced without stealing, social welfare would be improved.
Natural rights: the thief does not produce the benefits and has no right to it.
Well thanks for all your comments so far. I would like to state that I deliberetely emoved this from the Napster debate. It is to easy to get caught up in the nuances of that. I want a general answer on stealing. It makes it easier for other debates to continue if we come to an agreement on why stealing is wrong, or at least an understanding of each others positions.
Also for the record. I have never downloaded any illegal MP3’s from Napster, I have made copies of CD’s for friends. Of the 12 or so I’ve made, only once did a friend not go out and buy the album later. Not justifying it just going for full disclosure.
A couple of points. Stealing from musicians does not take money out of the janitors pocket. The musicians are simply one revenue source of a large corporation. That corporation hires a thrid party firm, that firm pays the janitors. The only way to actually steal from the janitors would be to steal thei paycheck. But, then again we aren’t talking about Napster here.
If the only reason that intellectual property rights exist is to further art and science… If I made a convincing argument that I could do that better by stealing, would it be right?
*BTW, Spider Woman, great post. *
As you, hopefully, know I’m a socialist. As such this quote just tickled me.
And yet this is done on a daily basis. It done by large corporations. It’s done constanly in California by almost every tech company (see CA’s overtime law), it’s done by the police and the state (Oaklands seivure law, other assorted examples). And yet, people don’t get nearly as upset about that as they do about an individual stealing? Why? Because what happens through the state and the companies is a normal part of our orderly society. I do want to keep this as a debate on stealing though, not on my particular views on capitalist society. One item that people had mentioned was stealing from individual people, that it violates their trust. What about stealing from large faceless corporations, do you have the same objections?
Let’s say you go onto land owned by Charles Hurwitz and pick Morel’s. You are stealing, in fact you are stealing a valuable item. Does anyone really think there is anything wrong with this scenario?
When you start stealing from large, faceless corporations, they lose money. As a result, they must raise prices a bit to cover the money lost from stolen items. When prices rise, honest paying customers pay more. So therefore, you aren’t just stealing from the large faceless corporation; you’re stealing from the economy as a whole.
Note: I’m not saying one person stealing will cause a price hike, but rather large amounts of people doing it.
I work for a large corporation (Safeway Inc., and as one of the slaves, but still), and one of the facts I learned was that the company loses 2.2 billion dollars a year from stolen goods. As a result, they have to slightly raise prices to cover that lost sum of money.
I don’t want to have to pay more money because someone else steals something.
A little of both. My point was that the right to own intellectual property is preconditioned on it promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. What I was getting at was essentially what oldscratch later posted (to paraphrase): if it’s possible to have a system of intellectual property that is at least as good as our current one at promoting progress in science and the arts and which permits people to copy intellectual property without payment in some instances, is it really correct to call this behavior stealing?
The point of my examples was to demonstrate that, in some instances, the progress of science and the arts can be successfully promoted despite the fact that people are able to copy intellectual property without paying the author (although they are discouraged from doing so in the Stephen King example.) Both of the examples make use of the unique properties of the Internet, which indicates to me that there may be a better system for dealing with intellectual property online, one which permits some copying of intellectual property without payment.
I agree, there are most definitely consequences for stealing his work, as you have stated. I am refuting Bill H.'s statement that “if people are allowed to steal, people will no longer have incentive to produce.” Clearly, in a practical but not legal or moral sense, people are allowed to steal his work; he isn’t making any effort to prevent them from doing so other than asking them not to do it. Even though this is the case, he still has incentive to produce because people are paying for his work.
No, I’d say it argues quite strongly that his incentive to produce and distribute his work is directly tied to the idea that, of the people accessing it, a significant percentage will pay for it. He still has an incentive to produce intellectual property even if some percentage of people won’t pay for it.
I am speaking of free software (AKA open source software). I was using the term “steal” facetiously. The reason I brought this example up is because it shows that, contrary to Bill H.'s argument, being able to sell intellectual property is not the only possible motivation for producing it. In fact, allowing people to share it can produce greater financial benefits for the author than would selling it.
Certainly. My point was merely that there are instances where allowing people to copy intellectual property without payment does not detract from (and actually may enhance) an author’s incentive to produce.
Ok. But, if everyone stopped stealing from Safeway this minute, would prices go down? No. they would just pocket the rest as additional revenue and give it to the stock holders.
Yes, and some people’s retirement plans, including mine, and including the elderly or the folks who contribute even $20 monthly to a 401(k), might including some of those shares.
Well considering thaqt Safeway sells food and almost nothing else. I find it perferable to find that food going into the hands of people who will eat it than into profits and into the hands of investors. Not many people are going to try and steal food from safeway if they aren’t hungry.
The corporation pays its labor force to produce a product. In effect, the corporation is purchasing the product from the laborers. The thief steals the product from the corporation. The corporation loses revenue. The corporation has already paid the laborers for the product. The corporation has lost something of value. In order to make up the value of what has been stolen, the corporation will either a) hike the final price of the remaining products or b) pay less money to the laborers.
“A” happens all the time and has already been mentioned here. However, there are times when the corporation does not have this option. If the corporation’s competition in the marketplace has driven prices down, the corporation will not be able to increase prices without losing market share.
“B” is what happens in this case. Greater limits are placed on the value of the compensation offered in exchange for labor. Wages are reduced. Benefits are eliminated. The quality of the workplace used by the laborer is reduced. Jobs are eliminated. Processes are streamlined to the point that they become dangerous or uncomfortable for the laborer.
If you steal from “the Man”, you are stealing from me. Either you are working to increase the price that I must pay in order to attain the product that you have taken, or you are stealing from the laborer. If you are stealing from the laborer, you are either stealing from me, the creator of the product, or you are stealing from other laborers who might otherwise have had the ability to buy my products.
Either way, you’re an ass and the enemy of the honest laborer.