wicked wrote:I'd have to agree it's technically "theft" if you're making it to get around the 4-game limit. If you're getting unlimited games for free, which everyone esle has to pay for, then technically, that's theft.
Well actually, that's where you'd be wrong...
What do you even mean by the word 'technically' wicked? Are you citing some actual legal or jurisprudential source? If not, then there's nothing technical about your opinion at all. If we're going to debate this clinically, then let's not try to dress up our own opinions as legal reality, because that's not going to get us anywhere.
Nephilim wrote:you ain't quite right, son
Well you ain't quite backing that up with any logical argument yet, so you'll excuse me for treating that as a bald assertion of your opinion. I'd love to discuss this civilly with you all, because I know it's a controversial topic. But if we're going to do this, then let's be logical and sensible and not just shout unsupported one-liners as if they were gospel. Eh son?
Gary30060 wrote:since when is not paying for something...that everyone else is paying for.......and you know you should....not theft?
Heh, best try so far, nearly.... but not quite.
Let me preface this by saying two things:
1. I don't really want to get involved in another mass ranting session, but I feel like a more thorough answer from me is required.
2. I disagree with multiple accounts entirely.
I'm firmly of the opinion that labelling the practice of 'multi-ing' as 'theft' is too crude an analysis. You're all right, you've identified the practice as 'bad', but your labelling of it as theft isn't accurate.
Multi-ing is dishonest, it's indulging in a good/service that you're not entitled to. But it's too simplistic to regard that alone as constituting a theft. The part that your analysis has missed is the fact that there's no element of deprivation inflicted on another. It's this that stops 'multi-ing' from legally being a theft, and in my view, keeps multis clear of the moral stigma of thievery.
Sure, what they're doing is a breach of a contract. You might deign to regard it as some sort of electric-trespass. You could even attempt to construe it as some sort of fraud (although that's fraught with its own difficulties). But it's not a theft.
It's easy to draw an analogy between multi-ing and theft, both of them are dishonest interferences with property, but the fact remains that multis aren't actually 'removing/appropriating/making-off-with' anything from anybody else; they're just taking advantage of a service that they're not entitled to (and at no/negligible detriment to the owner or others).
You're right to rankle at such conduct. But dubbing the conductees of such behaivour as 'thieves' is too clumsy an analysis.
Without deprivation (appropriation, unconsented-taking, etc) an action isn't a theft.
I appreciate that you're probably about to try to argue that multis are depriving Lack of $20 that he 'ought' to have as payment for the service that they've used. But this argument fails on deeper analysis.
Lack's entitlement to the money arises when a bargain is struck for premier membership rights; and in the absence of any such bargain, he has no entitlement. Using the service without paying for it isn't allowed, but doing so without such a bargain beng struck gives rise to no entitlement to funds. To play more than four games is going to cost you, and you can rightfully be denied access if you don't pay; but by trying to circumvent the agreement you're not depriving anybody of any right that has arisen, or ought to arise.
In short form: You're not allowed to indluge in the service without paying; but finding a way to indulge in it without paying does not deprive any party of any prior entitlement. Thus, there's no theft.
I see why you want to argue the way you do; if every multi paid lack the money for the service they used, then he would have more money. But the fact that they don't does not mean they have deprived him of anything.
Speaking simply as possible: You can't deprive somebody of an intangible right to finances if that right to finances has not yet arisen. (Even when that right would have arisen had you gone about your actions in a different fashion).
To use an analogy, if I played music in a concert hall, charging an entry fee to people who wished to listen to more than four songs; it would not be stealing for somebody to listen for more than four songs. I doubt either a lawyer or a layman would dub him a thief. He would have deprived nobody of anything; his actions would be both stingy and dishonest, but they wouldn't be stealing. I would of course have every right to evict the non-payer if I became aware he was staying for more than four songs.
It isn't the indulging that creates an entitlement to money, it's the agreement to pay. You can't appropriate that before it's arisen; but you can be prevented from indulging without making it. Attempting to circumvent the agreement isn't theft, because it doesn't deprive anybody of anything.
Perhaps a better analogy to draw is somebody who sneaks into a cinema without paying. I can't imagine you'd call that person a 'thief'; they don't take anything, they simply find a way to indulge in a service without striking the required 'access-bargain'. It's imoral, but it's not theiving.
The point is that it's nigh impossible to steal an undepleteable intangiable good (like CC), thus there are few 'thieves' of such items.
In conclusion:
If I asked you to define what you thought thievery was (before you'd considered this question) then your definitions would almost certainly not have caught multi-ing. The practice is wrong, but you need some other word in your vocabulary to dub 'multis'; because thieving isn't what they're doing, and therefore it's unfair to lavel them thieves (however wrong their practice). It'd be like labelling accidental killers as 'murderers' simply because you hadn't invented the word 'manslaughter' yet.
So Multi-ing is 'bad'. I suspect I agree with you all when you argue that. My problem really is with false labelling, either because of an unsophisticated analysis, or as a result of an inadequate vocabulary for defining miscreants. Multi-ing certainly isn't something people should be doing. But labelling such people thieves is overly simplistic, unfortuneatly inaccurate, and consequentially unfair.
Whew, good god that was long. Feel free to PM me if you've got any questions about that mini-essay.
But just remember: I don't support multi-ing, but I don't like inaccurate-labelling of offenders either.
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:42 pm
