I am the type of person who gives back change if I get too much from a cashier. In fact, I have taken back eleven cents a week later because I got too much change from a gas station attendant. This is the person I am.
Last night, I was exposed to a different way of thinking. An employee at a national retailer made an error; doing so allowed one savvy consumer to access goods not only before their street date, but also for free. A friend (not "a friend," but an actual friend) took advantage of this situation to his advantage. I subtly frowned on this and we discussed the situation.
This friend pointed out that this was an error made by the corporation. The relationship between the singular consumer and the massive corporation - that gets rich profiting off of other people's art, relying on buying and selling used items for a large portion of their profit. Neither my friend nor I approve of this company's policies. In addition, my friend - after taking advantage of the situation - notified store employees of the problem, allowing them to correct it for six different items.
So it boils down to this; I am less against this practice then I was last night, and I am honestly torn. Are we obligated to try and level the playing field against this national company that really profits from other people's art or desperation? Is solving the problem for five other items worthy of a reward of some sort, even if that wasn't the original intention? No physical items were taken; is this the equivalent of using a coupon code that you don't actually have? (For example, searching for Domino's coupons that result in a free sandwich/dessert, despite the fact that the coupon wasn't specifically offered to me?) Was this action okay?
Is this all justification for the action, or have my thoughts of the past night served only as poor rationalization for my friend's behavior?
(For those concerned, no merchandise has changed hands, and nothing illegal took place during the course of the evening, with the notable exception of harassment of a waitress at Ruby Tuesday's. Triple Prime burgers are delicious!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your friend sounds so handsome!
Brad, we are alot alike. We have some pretty obvious differences (genital sizes, as Casey can attest to) but I think deep down we have the same "thinker" outlook - constantly evaluating things, constantly re-evaluating things from different points of view, in order to stay not only a confident and well-thought person, but also to remain open to new types of thinking (the real only way people can progress).
But I also have come to a point where I really, honestly try to understand that everyone has different outlooks on things and that I am not always right (when it comes to opinion).
Someone thinks that "American Idiot" sucks? Okay, well maybe that's because my parents appreciated musicians like The Who and Elvis Costello, and theirs didn't, so we have different beliefs on what makes good music or powerful lyrics. I'm TRYING to get to that point.
And I think this is the type of thing that is.
I admit - I am the one you speak of in this blog. I stole (a picture of) an Xbox 360 downloadable content code and used it to the get the content for free.
You know, I can explain my feelings on the stealing of this Xbox 360 downloadable-content code:
1. The consumer/vendor relationship is not a relationship. The vendor is on such a large scale that consumer opinion is almost moot (even though I like Microsoft - the vendor in this case - this is still certainly true with them).
2. The vendor (in general and in this instance) has proven throughout the years that they will try to screw over the consumer in any way (hence my "Sonic the Hedgehog" theory - how many times have they tried to re-sell the game "Sonic the Hedgehog" to a "Sonice the Hedgehog" fan? They released it once for Sega Genesis, then again on THREE more cartridges for Sega, then on the Sega Saturn, then for Dreamcast, then for Gamecube, then for PS2/Xbox, then for PSP, then AGAIN on the PS2 and then again on the 360 and PS3. Also released on the iPhone (first three levels only) and the Sidekick, and the Wii (then again once more for 360). They also released it on Gamegear, Gameboy and PC at some point.
How many re-releases? 18 (at the very least).
How many times do they allow you to keep the license so you don't have to buy it again? ZERO.
(Also to keep in mind for this - the fact that many DVD titles have been released twice/thrice/more times with "more special features" to get the same buyer to spend more money on the same content).
3. I feel I do (and have proof of doing so) support the specific company (Microsoft) that I am "stealing" from, in many many ways: I use a Zune (and have had four), I've owned 6 Xbox 360s and 8 original Xboxes, I've owned more 8 Windows-based computers, and I own more than 70 Xbox/Xbox 360 games - and more than $500 in peripherals for said systems (I've also bought over $100 in "Microsoft points" to spend online).
But I think it's okay for you to look at that and say "You're right, it's a one-sided relationship. You're right, they obviously try to get people's money through whatever means neccessary, and often unfairly. You're right, you've obviously supported this company (and spent much money on them) for years and years...
but you still stole that code, stealing is wrong, no matter what."
And that's alright.
I think you can understand someone's reasons for doing something without agreeing that it justifies their actions. People just have different opinions, and that's okay.
You know - I'll keep listening to "American Idiot" and you can keep claiming that the Jonas Brothers "rock and RULE!"
If Mr. Staton had stolen a game from Microsoft based on the logic of being a regular customer, it wouldn't be justified. However I'm of the opinion that Staton did not steal anything. Regardless of its location, if a code is released into the public forum it is expected to be used. If the corporation makes the mistake of releasing it early, it is not the consumers duty to research the code and ensure that his use is justified. He is supposed to do what any consumer with a coupon does, use it unless he is told not to.
Whats the code! I want!
Post a Comment