The Free Zone Board

[Spallenzani]

Re: stealing vs. not stealing cable

I think this issue is similar to the debate over intellectual property rights. The cost of the "theft" that occurs when Neuro uses the cable tv for free is only an opportunity cost; he deprives the cable company of the revenues it would have received had Neuro decided to pay for it. But the actual cost of the resource itself, the power needed to disseminate the signal to one additional user, is negligible or even nonexistent. So too, if I purchase one movie ticket and, after watching the movie I paid for, stay and watch one or two more, I have not burdened the theater with any additional cost, other than if I took up a seat in a sold-out theater.

If Neuro believes that he would not buy cable otherwise, but might as well enjoy it if its "free", and if I believe that I would not have purchased those additional movie tickets otherwise, but might as well enjoy viewing the movies if they are "free", then what have I or Neuro stolen? That is, if there is no opportunity cost, there is no cost at all.

As for the moral question, I don't know. Again, I think that is a personal judgement, based on whether you truly believe you would have purchased the product otherwise. But in terms of causing actual harm, I don't see any.