Also – I do agree the author is very brave in the article to write about her past issues with stealing. But I too think she needs to learn the difference between being generous and paying what she owes. Paying for what you have stolen in the past (including using the coffee shops valuable space for paying customers) is not being generous, its just doing the right thing. But don’t do that any more, just pay as you go for what you get. No telling yourself you are going to play catch up later.

#61…about getting things for free after coupons. I am sure stores love types like you. But if the item is on sale (by the store) and you use a coupon to get it free, the store will get their money back from the manufacturer. Your $1 coupon is actually worth $1.05 or maybe even $1.10 to that store owner. They treat those coupons with care. They do get reimbursed. Never fear.

But using your logic, do you make sure that each purchase you make is only when the store makes money? Don’t you ever buy “loss leaders” or “clearance sales” when stores just want to clean out their inventory and you can get pairs of pants for 99cents, etc. You can be sure that the store didn’t pay only 99cents for them (retail value $50).

I think your sense of morality needs to be retrained. Maybe some lessons in economics. OTOH, the stores love you.

Thank you for another well written and honest post.

I can relate to these feelings as I too try not to spend money. In the past I often defended my stinginess by saying things like, “I’m a volunteer, I do not earn much.”

The people of Guatemala have taught me so much. Despite having very little they always give me food when I visit them. I wonder where this natural generosity comes from and I am ever so thankful that it is beginning to rub off on me after 21 months here.

Since embracing minimalism, I have come to learn that “stuff” including money and food come and go, it is life experiences that shape us into the people we want to be.

I too have tendencies to be extremely frugal (cheap) and then hoard the results. It was comforting to hear that you are managing to deal with this successfully. I hope that 2011 finds you making even more progress!

1) Is it stealing to pirate something, and
2) Is it moral to pirate something?

The answer to #1 is clear, as has been made clear earlier. When you digitally pirate a file, you are not stealing because you are not physically depriving anyone else from the original.

The answer to #2 is not so clear.

Most of us have an inclination to say that it is not moral because artists have a right to earn money from the work that they do, so long as that work is valued by other people enough for those people to consume it. (I have no illusions that I should be paid $100k per year by drawing stick figures… no one cares about my drawings because I have no artistic talent.)

At the same time, however, the availability of cheap and free content has actually improved the industries in several ways. It reduces the cost of content delivery, and it increases overall consumption.

To use the music industry as an example… although the large record companies and top artists are making less, it is actually much easier to make a living as a musician now. This is good for consumers as well, because it allows for much greater variety… a musician no longer has to be as mainstream to find a following and make a living.

How does this happen? Free digital content allows an artist’s reputation to spread much more quickly and rapidly. Even if, say, 8 out of 10 people who listen to your music don’t buy your record and choose to pirate instead, word of mouth means that there are far greater numbers, and those 2 out of 10 add up. And maybe one out of 100 buys the special premium package that costs $250 with signed liner notes and a record dipped in gold or something.

(To add to that, people who pirate can’t be counted as “lost sales” automatically. Many times, those who pirate would never ever pay money for the vast majority of content that they download. Counting those downloads as lost sales just doesn’t work financially, because in a world without pirating, those sales wouldn’t happen anyway.)

It’s like Google’s freemium strategy. SO MANY people use Google’s free tools, but the small percentage that choose to upgrade float the costs of the free services.

Of course, piracy on an individual level is still sticky morally. It would be better if artists could choose to opt-in to this model or not, even if the smart ones mostly would.

But piracy isn’t going anywhere, and maybe it’s time that we all re-think our premises about the concept of copyright and intellectual property.

When you pirate an e-book, you are NOT borrowing the item, you are making another copy of the book, which is illegal.

If your world comes to fruition, your entertainment options will be severely limited.

I hear you, I just get annoyed at pedantic twits who get their jollies out of “correcting” word usages that have become perfectly acceptable colloquialisms.

If we wanted to continue down this pointless path, Tyler could just as rightly point out that folks are using the word “piracy” incorrectly too, unless they’re copying their DVDs on the Black Pearl, courtesy of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Would people like Tyler also interject and correct an environmentalist who describes oil companies as “raping the environment,” since no actual rape is occurring?

Does he feel a need to correct people who describe rockets as “blasting off,” since it’s not actually an explosion, but rather a controlled burn?

See what I mean? It gets annoying. He knows what people mean, why needle and poke at people, just to make himself feel smart? It makes him look insecure, and it just annoys the heck out of the rest of us.

They ARE different things. They just are. That doesn’t say anything about either one of them, just that they are different concepts that are treated differently under the law. In that way, TylerK’s comment really had no point, since he was just pointing this out. I could have said, “stealing from a grocery store is different from holding someone up at gunpoint,” and both comments would contribute very little to the conversation. But the fact that people either can’t see the difference between theft and copyright infringement, or are too blinded by both being “bad” that they just won’t discuss it anymore, is very confusing and very irritating.

I personally don’t think TylerK’s comment had much of a point as a comment on this post (though, to be fair, if it had sparked interesting discussion, I would feel differently), but it is a FACTUAL comment that makes, pointing out an ACTUAL difference between two concepts.

In the case of a book, or a DVD, you buy it, you read it, you lend it to a friend, or you’ve taken it out of the library. It can (in practical terms) only be used by one person at a time.

In the case of a CD, if you buy it, burn it on to your computer, lend it to your friend, they burn it onto their computer then share a few tracks with a friend of theirs, now three people can use it at once, and that’s where it becomes thievery.

@Dee: in my conscience, what you’re describing is technically illegal but I don’t think it’s immoral and I wouldn’t argue that you’re stealing, since you’re watching it once then deleting it.

“Earning $50K a year, even if you just push papers around a desk all day, is worlds apart from earning $20 million for spending four months making a movie.”

Dink, it’s an issue of supply and demand. The simple fact is, if 50 million people are willing to pay $10 each to see a movie with Tom Hanks in it, who’s to say Tom Hanks only deserves to earn $50,000 for his work in the film? Who deserves the other $499,950,000? I suppose the makeup crew, set designers, camera and sound techs all deserve $50,000 each, too, so that takes care of another $50,000,000 or so. But that still leaves $449,950,000. Should the studio just give the money back to the customers? Donate it to charity? Give it to you? Stop making movies completely, because obviously the numbers are too screwy?

Movies have a theoretically unlimited supply. Anyone who wants to see a movie will be able to see it. The studios will simply keep the film playing until the demand has been met. But what about an example where the supply is limited? Like, say, tickets to the Superbowl?

Let’s say the Superbowl is being held in an arena that can hold 125,000 people. If they sold tickets for $5 each, they’d sell out in, oh, probably about 18 seconds. If tickets were $1,000 each, they might not sell them all. So the promoters set an array of prices to ensure that supply meets demand just about perfectly, and every last ticket is sold for maximum value.

Then, of course, there’s the TV rights. And the $25,000-per-second advertising time. Let’s say that all-in-all, the Superbowl generates $350,000,000. I’m just picking numbers out of the air here.

Now, how much of that should go to the athletes? I mean, they’re really only doing a couple hours’ work, and it’s not even really work for them – they enjoy it! So surely they don’t deserve more than a few hundred dollars for their efforts, right?

So where should the other $349,995,000 go? To charity? Should ticket prices be slashed? But then what’s a fair way to determine who gets the tickets, if 5,000,000 people are willing to pay $5/ticket to see the Superbowl, if the arena only holds 125,000 people? Luck?

Why are you trying to solve a problem capitalism has already solved? Why are you trying to circumvent the simple basic principle of supply and demand? Why does it offend you so much that these people earn so much more than you?

If you want a piece of the action so badly, why don’t you just make something that 50 million people are willing to pay $10 for?

I have a hard time trying to balance my budget with supporting the authors I enjoy. I’m not in a financial position to buy every book I want to read, and neither are most of my friends or family members. However, I’ve discovered a lot of great writers through the library or borrowing books from friends — and then gone on to buy their works. If I had to buy every book, I couldn’t spend more, I’d have to read less.

The issue gets quite complex. I frequent our local used bookstore and charity book sales — and that contributes to my community, unlike buying new books from a major online retailer. If I lend and borrow books from friends, that’s keeping items in circulation and helping the environment. (Would people rather they end up in the trash or recycling bin instead?)

I think it’s all a balancing act, and there are different laws and expectations for different types of media.

OK fine, you win, “Copyright Infringement” is a different crime than “Theft.” Is that what you wanted to hear? Are you happy now? Do you feel like the smart kid for your pedantic nitpicking over semantics? Do you have a glib little smirk on your face now? Do you feel better about yourself for being right about a definition, and pointing out to a crowd that they’re not using a word according to its technical, exact definition?

Congrats, big boy. Go make yourself a chocolate milk, you deserve it.

“I don’t have a problem with people who pirate. When I pay for movies in the theater, I have to sit through 15+ minutes of advertising. It used to be that if a movie started at 2pm, previews started at 1:50. If you paid for a movie at 2pm, it started at 2pm. Now you’re held captive to the ads, after paying more than $10 for the movie. It infuriates me and no longer feel any sympathy for the studios.”

I pay $80/month for my cable, but almost all my channels still have commercials.

What’s the difference? Does that mean it’s OK for me to steal TV shows, too?

Magazines cost money, but they still contain ads. So is it OK for me to steal magazines? Or would it only be OK if I snuck it out of the store, photocopied the whole thing, then returned the original?

Please discuss.

I do have to comment on the comments, though, about the coffee shop issue.

On web forums, I see *some* fiscally ‘conservative’ people who are anti-tax claiming that tax-supported libraries are ‘stealing’ from them by being tax-supported. (Coincidentally, despite the doctrine of first sale, it’s not unusual to see people in publishing also complain that used book sales or library circulation is also stealing from them, even if the user is not making a personal copy!) In many cases, these libertarians point out that they can buy books they need, and if they want to just hang out and read books for free, that’s what Barnes & Noble is for. However, you have to admit that if you need a place to sit down and decide which of 2 books to buy in a Barnes & Noble or Borders, it’s almost impossible because the seats are taken up those using the bookstore as a pseudo-library.

In the case of a library or a bookstore, or other place that offers free WiFi, etc. what you are doing has to do with not actual direct loss (if you weren’t there, the WiFi wouldn’t cost any more, nor is not using the library saving you money) but indirect loss, due to loss of sales or loss of services.

Anyway, that’s my pet rant.

If you want to be specific, there are numerous definitions of the term “stealing” in Webster’s Dictionary. The word “stealing” incorporates lots of meanings, including the following:

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment

(Of course, there are also legal defintion in criminal codes, as well, which depends on your state, etc). You are asserting that you are not stealing because it doesn’t fit under the one of the definitions of stealing, without recognizing that the term “stealing” is more expansive than your narrowly created definition. Thus, I can “steal” simply by appropriating (using) words/song/etc without the right.

It seems as if you confine the word “stealing” to only actions which affect a person a person’s bank account, but that fails to account for future profits/income. One can steal aonther’s idea (or secret forumula or client accounts, etc) without having an immediate affect on one’s bank account, but it still affects the person’s bank account in the future. If I wanted a song, found a place where I could download a pirated copy and thus did not need to purchase it from the artist, I have affected that artiest’s bank account and have stolen financially from him, just as if I took a box of cookies. The cookie baker has already expended the funds to make the cookies, so by taking the cookies without paying for them, I haven’t actually affected his bank account either, under your scenario.

I finally decided I didn’t want to lie to myself anymore about what I was doing…so I stopped stealing. It wasn’t hard to do, once I finally admitted to myself what a lowlife I felt like when I stole.

Congrats to the author for making amends. And for those who think piracy isn’t stealing…you’re wrong. You may have convinced yourself that it’s ok, but it isn’t. I wonder how many piracy apologists have ever created something…anything… themselves and had the experience of someone else ripping it off?

Here’s a simple rule: whenever you’re in doubt about whether something is “really” stealing or not, ask yourself honestly whether the person you’re “not stealing” from would consider it stealing.

While you felt “owed,” I have suffered from the opposite — I felt (feel!) that I owe the world, and no matter how well I perform or how much comfort and support I give to others, it’s never enough. It would never have occurred to me to steal in even the tiniest ways or to even so much as take a penny from the free-penny tray at checkout… I didn’t consider myself worthy of the same benefits and perks that other people get. Instead, I was (am?) constantly trying to give to the world and put everyone else’s comfort and happiness above my own. I just made myself smaller and smaller until I and my needs almost disappeared.

You and I are the inverse of each other. Both types of behavior are flawed. Both need changing.

The internet has opened so many doors as far as access to information, but it has also made many laws outdated. New business models are needed, but I am confident people do want to support artists if they have a convenient way to do so.

Honestly to HollyP/55 rather than looking at it as someone stealing from your husband, he should be grateful for the additional publicity/chance of currying an additional fan.

My point was that this community has an interesting set of morals that vilify or commend people for their life choices without any real justification for either action. (i.e bankruptcy, divorce, shoplifting, etc.)

One thing I wanted to add – you probably lifted the spirits of those managers and owners you paid back. I worked in retail and becamse accustomed to people stealing, and people being a royal pain in the neck. Not only did you NOT complain to the managers and owners, but you were owning up to what you did wrong and making amends. Trust me, they do not see that very often! If I were in their shoes you would have restored my faith in people

You speak of the idea of ‘feeling owed’, but as pointed out by a couple of others, I wondered if there was an underlying fear – I guess because that was my story. Somehow, at about the same age as you, I didn’t want to keep it up anymore. Truth was, I wanted more to be real. Until I could face my own shame, be real with me, I couldn’t be real with anyone else, including being the generous and caring person I knew I was too. Huge thanks for your honesty and bravery.