Depends on the "something". Is it a person's wallet, with ID and contact information? No, you don't have the right to take/keep it. There is a reasonable expectation that you realize it belongs to someone else.

Is it unidentifiable material with no reasonable expectation of belonging to someone else? Yes, you can. I have no problem with you picking up an empty beer can in the street and keeping it, if you really want to.

Ianal, but I believe "reasonable expectation" is a valid legal principle. At least according to the number of Google hits.

I qualified that statement with on purpose for a reason. The "thief" is doing exactly what the owner intended with their property.

If companies put coupon codes in the public domain (internet) with the foreknowledge and knowing intention that they will be distributed beyond the "intended" group I have great difficulty classifying it as theft - after all, people are merely doing what the originators intended. In the case of coupon codes they retain the right to deny usage and charge the "offender" the correct fee at any moment normally, at least read the T&C's

I suppose next people will give lectures about overweight and oversize luggage - that too is "theft"

You're free-riding. @:-)

(watching while eating my popcorn on this one)

Don't you think that assuming someone else's intent is a little...cheeky? (I was at a loss for a word there) I know I am seldom correct when assuming my wife's intent...

At least in the Washington DC area, leaving your car running (like having it warm up in the driveway while you go back into the house for a few minutes and pack your lunch) is illegal and can be ticketed, and if your car is stolen, you are out of luck with your insurance company as you failed to reasonably secure your car against theft.

Leaving your car running unattended in DC may not be acting wisely, but it doesn't mean that you wanted it to be stolen, as cj001f implies.

One night when I was in college, my girlfriend drove us to downtown Minneapolis in her car. Parked it on the street in a not-great area. Several hours later, she realized she didn't have her keys. After looking for a while, she said 'maybe I left them in the ignition'. We went to look, and they weren't in the ignition--they were in the outside lock of the driver's door in plain view of anyone walking down the street! It was certainly quite negligent of her, but everyone can rest assured that she had not wanted someone to steal the car.

The one thing that plays into the equation is the intent of the person using it.

When you look at many crimes some require intent, others do not. The term reasonable expectation is used to help define intent in some areas, and to define what naturally flows from an action. For example, I am at a shooting range, preparing to hit a clay pigeon. I shoot at the pigeon and it breaks. Just as I intended. Now one of the pieces hits the ground ricochets around and hits my buddy in the eye who is behind me. His injury occured from my intentional act. (shooting the pigeon), but his injury is not one that would be reasonably expected from the intentional action.

Carrying this forward. Lets say I broke into a house. Is this Burglary? Depends on why I am there (non-lawyers need to know that burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling place, at night, with the intent to commit a felony inside). If i came in the home looking for a place to get out of the rain, and then forcibly steal something from there, it is not burglary. Why because the intent wasn't there when I broke into the home to rob the homeowner. I still am guilty of robbery or theft, but not of burglary.

Carry this line of thinking over to the present thread. Theft is in essesance "the taking of the property of another with the intent to deprive that person of the permanent use or possession of the property" What does that mean? In the case of the airline seat, it is theft, because you have denied the owner (the airline) the permanent use of the seat (the duration of the flight being the life expectancy of the seat). However, in the case of the discount code it is not theft. Why? Because you are not denying them the permanant use of the item (the item being the period of the rental), you are just not paying them the full amount that you should. This is fraud and not theft. However, if the code gives an "upgrade" when whatever was reserved (be it car class or room type) is still available then I would argue that it is theft, because they lost the use of the item for the period of the rental for which you were not entitled.

Hence my analysis:
1. Sitting in F or C when not paying for it -- Theft
2. Using a discount code that you are not entitled to -- Fraud
3. Obtaining more than what you are entitled to through the use of a discount code having more features than just a discount -- Theft

It doesn't matter how you got the code or the seat. If you aren't entitled to the code/seat then you have commited a crime. The fact that the owner of the code/seat did not adequately secure the knowledge of it. Does not mittigate the act. In these cases, the only thing that will mitigate the act is if the person had a reasonable expectation that they were entitled to use the code/seat.

Now what we do here on FT in sharing discount codes is not outright fraud. Why? Because many of the discount codes are not limited to a few. I know many corporations that actually encourage the giving out of their discount codes. The main reason for this is that the more the code is used the better the deal the corp gets. At this point the person using the code has a reasonable expectation that they are entitled to use the code. (The owner gave it to me) And now it rests on the supplier of the service to enforce the rules of the code to protect their revenue. This is a significant tightrope to walk.

I may have more thoughts, but that is it for now.

Why does this have to be a left/right issue? Enron stole. Sitting in FC when you paid for coach is stealing too regardless of your political affiliation.

very well put. I agree.

I asked my law school criminal law prof once if using car rental codes was stealing. He said yes. Of course, nowadays anybody who would use a rental car code as opposed to Priceline gets what they deserve.

I asked my law school criminal law prof once if using car rental codes was stealing. He said yes.

Gosh! That settles it for me!!!

This is a fascinating read. ^ I have another question... what about when a person goes "discount fishing"... just by entering sequential numbers into an online form to see what comes up? See here for an example of the amount of sh*t which can hit the fan when such numbers are leaked. IMHO, the company (in this case, CO) offering discount codes has a certain level of responsibility to not use a system so blatantly easily-gamed as simple sequential numbers on offer codes. I mean, come on. Besides, I believe it is the company's responsibility to put reasonable controls in place to ensure that discount / upgrade codes are not used by those who are not elligible to use them. Eg: DL's promotions are systematically tied to the Skymiles numbers of members who are elligible for them. Enter promo code, enter SM#... if they match, the member was elligible all along; else if no match, no promo elligibility.

Perhaps I was unclear. By on purpose I meant that the owner hoped the car would be stolen by leaving it unlocked, not that they were careless in securing their vehicle.

I know that this is not the way many, probably most, companies operate, but their are companies who do operate in this manner. Drawing any broad conclusions would be a bit broadbrushed.

I guess my question would be...why would anyone enter sequential numbers into a discount code form? If they aren't qualified for a discount, what is the purpose of entering a code? Sounds to me like the intent to defraud is in place, if (and only if) the person intends to take advantage of whatever pops up.

One of the good comments in the "Sneaking into First Class" thread was (paraphrased) "thieves will say a lot of things to justify their behavior". Concise, correct and to the point. ^