What is the most harmless "crime"?

walking on the grass
The quad for my law school had a sign that said "Stay off Grass". We didn't know whether they meant the grass in the quad or was intended as an anti-drug message. Nevertheless, first year law students were always called grass asses (for sitting on the grass before they knew they would earn the nickname) and any intended anti-drug message certainly didn't get through.
 
Downloading music is theft, and is stealing from the composer and producer. I don't think it harmless at all.

A harmless crime would be having consenting sex with a girl when she's told you that she's 16. I've heard of a boy who did that and went to prison for having sex with a minor. The girl, who also had sex with a minor (him) got nothing but a telling-off from her parents.
"Having sex with a girl is rape! I don't think it's harmless at all!"
 
Oh yeah, the sodomy law Clinton struck down I believe.
Also see S&M in the UK. Also soon to be joined by laws which will make taking photos of such consensual adult acts in private comparable to possessing child porn.
 
- Underage sex. But I mean for you, not with someone else. I can't believe some people can get in jail for having sex at 17, especially when they both consented.

- Music piracy.
 
Clearly, they didn't see them as property, since your property right for physical property does not expire after 14 years. And I hope you don't need to be told how theft is different..
Property rights are a "bundle of sticks" - and as far as inetellectual property rights go - the founders recognized a timeframe for which the creator of that property could have exclusivity on how that bundle was distributed. If you take a stick without paying during that timeframe, you are stealing
Personally I'd much rather some guy copy my software when he wasn't going to pay for it, rather than him come breaking into my home and stealing my things.
I represent a software company that licenses its software to its clients for anywhere from $3,500 to $350,000 per year and most clients happily pay because it is worth it to them from a financial standpoint - free market capitalism at its finest. Someone stealing is likely doing more damage in financial terms that your average burglar. Because the industry my client licenses to is highly regulated, when they catch a thief, they can usually extract a premium license fee out of such thief rather than expose them to their regulators. If they hadn't have stolen in the first place, then they would have paid a lower fee for the software than they ultimately end up paying.
 
Not keeping your dog in a leash.

My new favorite. Since I usually don't even think of this law, I hadn't thought of it. ;) My dog comes when she's called, period. Even if she's chasing a squirrel, I call her, she comes. I keep an eye on her, and if she leaves a turd, I clean up. She's never attacked anyone, and she's strong enough that if she decided to, me holding a leash wouldn't be able to stop her. Certainly some dogs need to be on leashes because they simply can't behave themselves, but to put a blanket ban is irrational. I believe it actually causes more harm than good: if the law says leash, you always use a leash. If you use that leash as an excuse to not train your dog properly, the way people use the dog's size, or the dog's crate, or whatever, you've got a less harmless dog.

Even if it's a rabid pit bull?

If your dog is rabid, you've got more important things to deal with than leashes. And I've seen that you're reasonable, so please don't take the cheap line and blame pit bulls for their reputations. (Hint: it's nurture.)


So anyone else think that the OP was aiming for the IP debate? :mischief:
 
Property rights are a "bundle of sticks" - and as far as inetellectual property rights go - the founders recognized a timeframe for which the creator of that property could have exclusivity on how that bundle was distributed. If you take a stick without paying during that timeframe, you are stealing
We're not talking about physical things like stick. See the definition of stealing.

If they hadn't have stolen in the first place, then they would have paid a lower fee for the software than they ultimately end up paying.
Ah, but what if they wouldn't have "stolen"(sic)?

And I work in software too, by the way.
 
Consenting adults doing whatever they please to each other. (Struck down in 2003 to the best of my knowledge)
Pornography of consenting adults, if the Justice Department gets its way.
Teenagers taking nude photos of themselves and being charged for producing "child pornography."
The sale and purchase of sex toys
Being an atheist and running for office.

/edit
I'm unaware of any penalty for that last one, it's "merely" a violation of some state constitutions.
 
"Having sex with a girl is rape! I don't think it's harmless at all!"

Very funny. Except that if you look in a dictionary you'll see that the definitions of rape and consentual sex are not compatible.
Whereas stealing and downloading music are far more similar, not being opposites and all that.
Having sex with a consenting partner harms no-one. Taking someone else's creation, the making of which is his livelihood, is a lot closer to harmful, whether it's music, software or a physical item.
 
Very funny. Except that if you look in a dictionary you'll see that the definitions of rape and consentual sex are not compatible.
Whereas stealing and downloading music are far more similar, not being opposites and all that.
Having sex with a consenting partner harms no-one. Taking someone else's creation, the making of which is his livelihood, is a lot closer to harmful, whether it's music, software or a physical item.

Except legally, one under the age of consent cannot have consentual sex by definition.
 
We're not talking about physical things like stick.

The "bundle of sticks" concept in property rights refers to intangible rights. The right to occupy an apartment if you pay rent is not a physical thing, but is one of the "sticks" available for the owner of the property to sell. Just because it is intangible does not mean someone should be able to exercise the right for free.
 
Except legally, one under the age of consent cannot have consentual sex by definition.

I still say that it's less harmful than taking someone else's stuff (whatever that may be). We rather rely on property rights for society to function.

Perhaps a lawyer could explain to me why, in my example, the boy was prosecuted, but the girl was not, despite both of them being under the age of consent? Are boys deemed more mature, and able to consent earlier? Why don't we get to vote earlier?
 
Software piracy as far as I know hasn't led to any deaths or injuries.
 
Software piracy as far as I know hasn't led to any deaths or injuries.
So if no death or injury results, it shouldn't be a crime? If I pull off an armed bank robbery and nobody gets hurt, I should just be seen as an aggressive businessman rather than a criminal?

Nobody get dies or gets injured by identify theft. If I steal your banking information and drain your bank account, it's harmless, right?
 
Software piracy as far as I know hasn't led to any deaths or injuries.

Depends how you're pirating it. Buying a DVD from a dodgy looking guy at the market could be funding all sorts of illegal activity... you just don't know. Same goes for buying weed (if only they'd just legalise it already).
 
Back
Top Bottom