kobayashi said:
in any case i fear we are being far too particular for it to matter. my only point was that in many cases the students are also considerably leaned on.
We probably ARE being too nit-picky on the subject; either way, I grant that going to school is usually a financially difficult thing to do - requiring aid to pay for tuition (and sometimes books) and often forcing students to "travel cheap," on foot or via public transportation.
That said, I don't believe the situation reduces to something like a VERY poor man - someone who cannot find a job - stealing bread to feed his family.
First of all, software theft presumes HARDWARE. In most cases, the ones who steal software already own personal computers, and it should not be surprising that the claims of personal poverty generally fall on deaf ears.
Second, it is typically driven by convenience rather than actual need: yes, it may be quite inconvenient and fairly difficult to walk to campus to do all your work, but it is NOT some sort of Herculean feat. Students are already expected to do the inconvenient tasks of getting to classes, keeping up with readings, and finishing assignments - and difficulty doesn't exonerate them from doing the work.
(Just as a difficult project doesn't justify cheating, a long commute doesn't justify immoral shortcuts: stealing someone else's bike would make the commute faster, just as stealing someone else's software may make the trip unnecessary. But neither act is justified.)
Third, buying specialized equipment is often assumed. When you study to become an architect, it is presumed that you will buy the drawing tools; a physics major will buy a graphing calculator and the huge reference manual; a music major presumably buys his musical instrument. A graphics student SHOULD expect to invest in the appropriate software - and is expected to do so legally, just as a music major should not steal someone else's flute.
Finally, we are talking about a college student, one who is presumably talented enough to get a job. Of course, students often face heavy demands on their time, but if a student is expected to buy something he cannot afford, there is nothing wrong in further expecting him to earn the necessary cash rather than stealing.
Everything you've mentioned... school costs, commuting difficulties... they're all excuses. They simply do not justify theft.
Let's look at a different scenario: let's say that the same busy, poor student doesn't "need" just the software package for his computer, but lacks BOTH the computer and the software.
It is, I hope, CLEARLY wrong for him to steal the computer, either from a roommate, someone down the hall, or even a Wal-Mart - some megacorporation who can afford the loss.
(If you don't see the clear immorality of the act, particularly if it's stealing from Wal-Mart, I remind you that it is property rights, including rights of the wealthy, that allows our system of capitalism to work so well. You might also want to keep in mind that you're not only hurting a corporation and its stockbrokers, but also its minimum wage employees - including one who may get fired over a missing computer. And, in the end, most moral codes make no distinction about who is robbed: "Thou shalt not steal," NOT "Thou shalt only steal from those who have more than you.")
If it's wrong to steal the computer, why is it okay to steal the software?
The ONLY difference is that you're making a copy: the orignal, rightful owner isn't missing his orginal software packwage. But copyright laws rightfully assert that it is immoral and illegal to copy sheet music or a published book. I believe that the law extends to digitally encoded music and software - that the ONLY difference between stealing hardware and software is an irrelevant difference.
Still theft. Still immoral.