No it’s not a valid definition of theft by any means. Claiming otherwise does not change that. The very statement “for which one would otherwise be obligated to pay” gives it away. If the obligation is part of it, then it is not an agreed upon transaction.

Of course it’s a valid definition; claiming that it’s not does not make it so. It may not be a legal definition in all circumstances (though it is in some). At the most basic level, theft is taking something that is not yours without permission. The obligation to pay gives nothing away and the obligation doesn’t negate it’s part in a transaction in any way. A transaction is an offer and an acceptance of the offer; if part of the offer is the expectation of payment, a transaction is only valid if those terms are agreed to buy the “buyer.”

The problem is that “should have paid for.” Who decides that? It’s totally subjective — which is why I said he *should* pay for me linking to him. After all, he is benefiting, and it is one side of the parties in the transaction insisting what should be paid for. The analogy stands and is accurate.

Subjective? Not really. If I offer a product–a game, a song–to the market on the terms that to get the product I want you to pay for it, that’s not subjective, it’s commerce. Yes, he may get some benefit from your linking to him, but there is no transaction here. Indeed the only subjectivity is your theoretical desire to be paid. The analogy stands only as a circus contortionist.

Ah, but there’s the problem. Again, you are using the subjective in claiming that there is an “obligation” to pay. I am saying — quite clearly — that as the party offering the benefit, that he is obliged to pay me. That’s the same thing as Activision saying that anyone who wants to play their game is obliged to pay. The logical flaw remains with him — and, apparently, you.

Hmmm. Did I read somewhere that you had an MBA? These two situations are completely different. You may offer a benefit with your link and may think you’re owed payment, but unless there is a specific, active acceptance of your offer, there is no obligation. Since your link “transaction” is completely one-sided, no obligation. However, Activision is making an explicit offer: if you want to play the game, pay for it. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t play. However, if you obtain the game and play it, you have actively accepted the offer and have actively created an obligation to pay. If you don’t, you’ve violated the terms under which the transaction was offered. You’ve taken something that is not yours. In general parlance, that’s theft.

Wow. You are really confused. If there is no mutual transaction agreed upon, and I decide to get the product from a third part (another source) who is offering it under better terms, that is not theft. In any sense.

Quite clear headed, Mike. It’s still a transaction, assuming you’re getting the product from a source that has the right to offer it to you. You can buy from Activision, from a retailer, or any other third-party source and still have a legitimate transaction that is not theft. When you download from the web from unauthorized sources, that’s still a transaction, just not a legitimate one. If it makes people feel better about their actions to present self-serving justifications that it’s theft in the broad sense, that’s just human nature. But it doesn’t make it not theft.

And endlessly and rudely — and totally incorrectly — calling it theft will change someone’s mind?

No, it’s important to explain why it’s not theft, because when you believe it’s theft then it’s a moral issue, and most people — you included, at times — cannot seem to get past the moral issue that it’s theft and thus must be “wrong.”

Ah, now to the crux of the issue. And why you seem to miss the point entirely. You can “explain” endlessly that “it’s not theft” because it’s not a legal definition, it’s really civil “infringement,” etc., etc…. {zzzzzz}. But what you can’t seem to get past, Mike, is that it’s not just an economic issue; you continually deprecate any “moral” component but unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work like that. Indeed, morally “piracy” is theft and is wrong. It’s also illegal.

My entire point is that if you ignore that “moral” component that most people instinctively recognize, you’ll never get anyone on the other side “past” it. The whole point is how to get those resistant to change past their indignation…and fear…to embrace change.

From childhood, this “moral” component is nearly bred into us. “Mommy, Tommy stole my toy!” “That bitch Vanessa stole my boyfriend!” “Hey, who stole the last piece of pie?!” It’s human nature. Theoretical economics is fine for the graduate school classroom, but the real world doesn’t work that way. You can’t ignore the “moral” component. Telling the content industries that what they know in their bones to be theft really isn’t for all sorts of legalistic reasons defeats your arguments before you can make them.

And we’ve made that point — though, without the false claim of it being theft. Perhaps you were on vacation.

No, not on vacation. But quite weary of the litany and the preaching to the choir. You may have tried to make the point, but buy insisting on the claim of theft being false is where you fail. And you are preaching to the choir. Which argument do you think would better reach beyond the choir to the pews? A) You’re wrong it’s not theft (insert lengthy explanation here), and you need to move past it. Or B) You’re right, it’s is theft and terribly unfair, but since you can’t stop it, you need to move past it. The pews will stop listening to A) at “you’re wrong”. They’ll listen to B.

No, I firmly believe that the first step to getting beyond it is realizing that it’s not theft. You *can’t* get beyond it if you think it’s “terribly unfair.” You’re always going to make a mistake.

Well, then there’s probably no point in attempting a conversation, if that’s your firm belief. You’re setting yourself a huge hurdle that doesn’t need to be there. I know from personal experience that you’re wrong; I’ve seen it in action. It is much more difficult to make your case when your starting point is convincing someone that what they know is true in fact isn’t. The only times I’ve seen the minds of executives in the content industry change is when you acknowledge that what they know to be true is in fact true, but irrelevant.

No, the first step in getting people to see the pocketbooks is to show how it’s working and explain why it’s not theft at all, but a promotion. If you can’t see that, you’ll never, ever figure this stuff out.

Well, it’s pretty easy when you’re sitting on the sidelines, without skin in the game to tell people what they know is true is not. It all sounds so simple, doesn’t it. The problem is that it ignores how businesses actually work in the real world. You often lament that you don’t understand why executives in the content industries keep pursuing counter-productive strategies toward digital products and snark at them for not “getting it.”

This is a good illustration of why you don’t understand: you don’t understand who they are and how they do what they do and the culture they do it in.

I’ve figured this stuff out long ago. Coming up with effective strategies for implementing change is the more difficult part, and it starts with changing minds and thereby changing industry culture. You’re probably not interested in that.

It’s not the underlying message that you get wrong, Mike, it’s the tone-deaf delivery and your apparent inability to consider modifying it.