Replies to post #6215 on The Free Zone Board

[RoguePlanet]

Trying to rationalize theft:

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. - Spall

It seems you have unilaterally determined that because the cost to the provider of services that you are using without authorization is minimal or non-existent, there is no theft. It's just a fancy justification for theft. Granted, it's a small thing, but it's still basically theft and it's wrong. In your example, Spall, you are also committing trespass when you remain to see the second movie for which you haven't paid. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by your disregard for private property rights. ;)

[was Graywolf]

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.

You addressed only one side of the argument here. YOu didn't even go into the aspect of intellectual property rights. Even with that, I have to disagree with your entire justification. If the person doing the stealing is the one who determines what constitutes theft, then we might as well go ahead and get rid of all theft laws. The embezzler who only steals .01% of the gross income of a multinational corporation didn't steal because it was a drop in the bucket and wouldn't affect the company. Look at it this way - what would happen if everyone does the little things you claim aren't hurting anyone? What if a two screen theater opened with two movies, and the entire audience of each house just moved next door at the end of thier show, because "they weren't going to pay for this movie, but since they're there anyway...."? In Neuro's case, what if everyone said "well, I could just watch the TV from the signals on the air, but I bought broad band service so the signal is here anyway, so what's the big deal? The answer is the same in both cases - the company in question would have to either close thier doors or jack up thier prices to the people who are honest and pay for the service. The size of the take does not determine if something is theft. Nor does the perception of the person doing the taking. I'll tell you the same thing I told Neuro - if you think it's ok, then go to theater management and tell them what you are doing. If it's ok, they'll let you do it. Otherwise, you ARE taking something that is not yours without permission, and that is theft.