 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
Honest Questions From a Simple Man.
We continue the debate
regarding the heading 'When is Theft Not Really Stealing' from last week. If
you missed it, you might want to start there. Here's the link: http://stuartaken.blogspot.com/2012/03/when-is-theft-not-really-stealing.html
Theo: Last time, we established that there's a
general public attitude about petty theft from the place of work that considers such
things as the taking of small items of stationery, chatting around the water
cooler in work time and printing stuff for charities as not really stealing,
you agree?
Dave: Yeah. And we said the bosses do it as well, when
they have meetings on the golf course or travel Business Class to conferences,
when they could just as easy meet on video conference.
Theo: So, there's a generally accepted feeling that
petty theft is simply a part of everyday life in which most people participate?
Dave: Everyone does it.
Theo: Does this extend to such things, I wonder, as borrowing
a book from a friend and never returning it?
Dave: That's not fair, but I don't think most people
would think of it as theft. I mean, it's usually just because they've forgotten,
isn't it?
Theo: How do we feel about copying a music track
from a friend's CD so we can play it in our car?
Dave: Happens all the time.
Theo: No doubt. But is it theft?
Dave: How would it be theft? I mean, the guy who
owns the CD can copy it legally so he can have a copy in the car and one at home,
can't he?
Theo: That's actually not quite as straightforward,
legally, as you might think. But forget that for the moment. The point about
the guy with the CD is that he's already paid the artist by buying the CD. His
friend, however, has made no contribution to the artist, has he?
Dave: I suppose not. But he might decide to buy the
whole CD once he's listened to the track, so the artist gets a new fan.
Theo: On the other hand, he might not. And if he
copies the whole CD from his friend's?
Dave: Same goes. He might decide he'll buy the next
CD the artist brings out. So, the artist gains.
Theo: Or not, of course. It's a bit tenuous, though
isn't it? Justifying this activity on the grounds that it might result in
future payment to the artist? There'll be those who decide never to buy
anything from that particular artist but still retain the original copied CD.
Dave: Yeah, well, that's the way things are, isn't
it? Any case; look at the sort of money pop stars make. They're not going to miss
one or two sales, are they?
Theo: So, what makes it okay to steal income from
pop stars is the fact that they're already wealthy from performing? Suppose
this particular artist is just emerging, has produced the CD at his or her own
cost, whilst working nights as a supermarket shelf-filler?
Dave: Well, no, you wouldn't want to do that from
someone just starting out, would you?
Theo: Selective theft, then. Interesting idea. Let
me ask you, would you go into a shop and steal a CD off the shelf?
Dave: Jeez! 'Course not. That's shop-lifting.
Theo: But it's okay to do exactly the same thing by
copying material without paying for it?
Dave: Not the same. If you shop-lift, you're taking
from the shop keeper as well. He's already paid for it and you've robbed him of
his costs, haven't you?
Theo: Since the legal purchase of the item would
also involve the retailer, the only actual difference I see is that the shop
keeper hasn't, in that case, lost his expenditure but merely the opportunity of
the profit, which is the part of the transaction that keeps him and his family
alive.
Dave: Record companies should make their CDs
cheaper, then people wouldn't be tempted to copy them, would they?
Theo: So, it's the fault of the supplier? You think
it's the cost of the item that makes theft justified? Champagne's ridiculously expensive
for what it is; is it okay to steal that as well? At what point would the theft
become wrong?
Dave: What do you mean?
Theo: Well, say for example, that the item was sold
for £10.00 ($15.68) for, say, 12 tracks? Is that too much to pay?
Dave: It's a lot.
Theo: So, how much would be not too much?
Dave: Hard to say. But I guess I'd pay, say, £6.00
($9.41).
Theo: And £0.50 ($0.78) per track would stop you
copying in the future, would it?
Dave: Probably.
Theo: Theft, then, isn't an absolute but a quality
dependent on certain personal judgements about the worth of the object and the deserving
nature, or otherwise, of the creating bodies?
Dave: Jeez, you do like to complicate things, don't
you?
Theo: Sorry, Dave, I thought I was clarifying them.
You feel it's okay to steal providing the person or
organisation you steal from can afford it? That seems to be what you're saying
and I simply want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Dave: Well, yeah, except I wouldn't call it theft.
Theo: What would you call it?
Dave: Dunno.
Please let me have your comments and observations.
By the way, apologies for the delay this week: I've been a bit under the
weather.
Next time, we'll move on to the next part of the
debate, especially as it pertains to written material, which is, after all,
what most readers of this blog are involved with.
2 comments:
Aaaah, a thorny issue here. Seems pretty straightforward, but while we are very tempted to applaud Robin Hood's (Robbing Hoodlum?) actions, he is definitely stealing. Interesting that I found about 50 synonyms for "steal" in a thesaurus, and can think of others. Always found the "five-finger discount" amusing myself. The term, that is.
Seems we innately trust our ability to judge the depth of another man's pockets, and the honest labor by which that person has come by that wealth, more than we really have reason to, especially when the other person is a business. If we are not paid what we think we are really worth, or if we have been mistreated, or if we have to work an undesirable schedule, or any number of other factors come into play, we may decide to "level the playing field" by seeking some other kind of "compensation." Still, as pointed out, it's pretty rampant.
My wife used to work for a law firm where all kinds of supplies seemed to "walk" out of the office. Pens, paper, staplers, folders, you name it. For the lawyers themselves, some of this "give away" was just part of the cost of doing business, and sometimes changing certain business machines meant switching to new kinds of suppliers, rendering all the old materials useless waste. So the office decided certain items were no longer desirable, and while that's perfectly legitimate, I think it fosters the notion that the company can afford the loss without notice or care.
I think if an employee attempts to conceal his pilferings, it speaks for itself as condemnation.
Yes, stealing is one of those words that breeds synonyms, many of them euphemisms, probably used to hide the reality of the act from the perpetrator.
Robin Hood, of course, would argue that he was merely rebalancing the books, or, as you put it, levelling the playing field. Interesting, isn't it, how we can usually find ways of defending some activities and condemning others, which, when put under scrutiny, are actually very similar?
Post a Comment