Laws Vs Ethics Vs Genuine Bargains - Where Do You Draw The Line?

Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 14:31
Last edited 24/05/2024 - 08:29

Hi ladies and gentlemen, Camelface here with a rather sensitive topic.

We all love a good bargain, but some deals or money-saving practices can stretch legal boundaries or present ethical dilemmas.

I have categorised them into three groups below and have attempted to provide some examples or context under each:

Genuine bargains

There are plenty of examples in the deals section for this one. Here we're talking about product discounts, free offers, coupon codes, cashback referrals, etc., which are legitimate and genuine.

—————————————————- Line 1 ——————————————————-

Unethical conducts or supporting unethical businesses. Knowingly lying or cheating to get bargains

This is rather a grey area, and I have no doubt some of you may not agree with me. To provide some context to explain what I mean here:

  • You use your child's school or education account to get the education discount on a laptop or a similar item, but the item is actually for your use.
  • Promote or purchase through grey imports, which can lead to potential tax evasions.
  • Promote or purchase from companies that are known to have unethical business conducts such as employee exploitations, environmental negligence or poor production practices.
  • There's a popular item which is 50% off, and when you go to the shop, only 2 items are left. You grab both.

—————————————————- Line 2 ——————————————————-

Stealing or illegal conducts towards saving money

Stealing means taking what is not given to you or what is not yours. Again, some context below:

  • You use a VPN to Turkey or India to get a cheaper Netflix subscription.
  • Buy or promote items that are not legally allowed in the state or the country (e.g. electric scooters)
  • Promote ideas or practices that are illegal (e.g. certain DIY advices in the forums)

My question is, where do you draw the line? Please use the voting options below, and thanks for the participation and the feedbacks.

—- Closing comment —-

Dear all, thanks for joining the conversation and providing feedbacks. There were many insightful comments. Obviously we're not here to judge anyone, and all the viewpoints are respected and acknowledged.

I've requested the moderators to close this thread now.

Poll Options expired

  • 41
    Anything above line 1
  • 33
    Anything above line 2
  • 195
    I don't draw lines. If it's profitable, and if I don't get caught, I'll take that.
General Discussion

Comments

  • randomusername2017 on 21/05/2024 - 14:33
    +14

    Draw The Line?

    In the sand…it's constantly shifting

  • mskeggs on 21/05/2024 - 14:35
    +79

    I think you need to read up on what a law is and what makes something illegal.
    Nothing in the third option is illegal.

    • Joey2scoops on 22/05/2024 - 07:55

      Not sure that is 100% right but Option 3 would definitely be in the unethical category

      • spackbace on 22/05/2024 - 13:25
        +10

        It's unethical to say you're in a different country so a giant company like Netflix don't charge you differently?

        Pretty sure if you asked 10 ppl on the street if it was unethical, at least 9 would ask "tell us how you did it, I'd love to only pay that price"

        • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 13:28
          -5

          Correct, but it was always the odd one who changed the world.

          • spackbace on 22/05/2024 - 13:29
            +4

            @Camelface: Maybe the one who demanded cheaper access is the one who changed the world?

          • brendanm on 22/05/2024 - 17:35
            +6

            @Camelface: The odd one who wants to overpay a rorting multinational is the good guy?

            • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 13:45

              @brendanm: How are they rorting? They’re selling an optional product at a price they’ve determined, in a competitive marketplace.

              Just because someone feels their price is too high doesn’t mean it’s rorting.

              • brendanm on 23/05/2024 - 14:28
                +1

                @SolitaryMan: They tax dodge.

                • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 15:03

                  @brendanm: Very broad generalisation. Your actions also will not change their behaviour in that regard - governments need to get tighter with regulations.

                  • brendanm on 23/05/2024 - 15:27
                    +1

                    @SolitaryMan: It's simply a fact. I don't use any VPN to access Netflix cheaper, though people doing that does lower their income, which I have no issue with.

            • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:52
              -2

              @brendanm: No, the odd one would think I would rather not use the service, because it's beyond my affordability at this point in time.

              • brendanm on 23/05/2024 - 20:50

                @Camelface: Why do that when you can get the service at a price you can afford?

        • The General on 22/05/2024 - 21:01
          +3

          Perhaps it is unethical of Netflix to charges us more because we are in Australia. Just saying.

        • Joey2scoops on 23/05/2024 - 09:48
          +1

          What "People on the street" think is irrelevant. That would also justify you stealing the leg of lamb from Woolies because they're ripping you off. Some bloke said so.

          You're making a personal judgement about Netflix fees based on absolutely ZERO knowledge of the detail that influences those fees. So, that's a strikeout on both counts. Good luck defending yourself in court with that strategy.

          • brendanm on 23/05/2024 - 20:51
            +1

            @Joey2scoops: Somehow I don't think you are going to be in court over using a VPN to get Turkish Netflix.

        • johnfuller on 23/05/2024 - 10:17

          what about big mac price in australia vs a third world country? maybe they are higher for a reason for example local servers to deliver you fast content?

    • barge-in hunter on 22/05/2024 - 09:43
      +4

      I'm not sure I agree. Check out this definition of fraud, under the Australian Crimes Act.

      Not a lawyer, I just read it differently

      CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 192E
      Fraud
      192E Fraud

      (1) A person who, by any deception, dishonestly—

         (a) obtains property belonging to another, or 

   **(b) obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage, **

      is guilty of the offence of fraud.

         : Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 10 years.

      The example of "You use a VPN to Turkey or India to get a cheaper Netflix subscription."
      - you're deceiving Netflix by stating or implying (through the use of a VPN & deliberate purchase of international payment methods) that you reside/are accessing Netflix from another country, in order to get a financial advantage. Netflix are therefore financially disadvantaged as a result of your deliberate deception.

      Sure sure, the chances of Netflix actually chasing up someone and attempting to get them charged with fraud is super unlikely - but I don't think "likelihood of getting caught" is really the point of the poll

      • Hangryuman on 22/05/2024 - 10:14
        +2

        yep - I seem to recall 'obtaining financial advantage by deception' could be criminal fraud

        as you say - if people don't get caught, they can feel impunity - unless or until they feel negative consequences, whereupon they tend to feel sorry - that they got caught.

      • YellowDieselGolf on 22/05/2024 - 19:47
        -1

        They’re “determining” your location from an IP address. That’s not the same as entering a fake details into a form.

        VPNs are perfectly legal and have dozens of legitimate uses. Maybe they should actually ask where you live if they want to use your location to determine how much they charge.

        • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 13:48

          Nobody has argued that VPNs are illegal.

          You’re making a deliberate and conscious decision to deceive them into believing you’re in another country, that’s the whole basis of using a VPN in that specific country.

          If it was a byproduct of using a VPN that you weren’t aware of it would be a very different matter.

          • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:34

            @SolitaryMan: VPN is not illegal, like a knife isn't illegal. It's about what do you use it for.

            • twinbag on 23/05/2024 - 22:17
              +3

              @Camelface: From wikipedia on geoblocking
              In Australia, a policy FAQ published by then Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull, states that users violating an "international commercial arrangement to protect copyright in different countries or regions" is not illegal under Australian copyright law.[19] However, an amendment to Australian copyright law allows courts to order the blocking of websites that primarily engage in "facilitating" copyright infringement—a definition which could include VPN services that market themselves specifically for the purpose of evading geo-blocking.[19][25] Prior to the passing of this amendment in June 2015, Turnbull acknowledged that VPN services have "a wide range of legitimate uses, not least of which is the preservation of privacy—something which every citizen is entitled to secure for themselves—and [VPN providers] have no oversight, control or influence over their customers’ activities.

    • based on 22/05/2024 - 10:25
      +2

      (e.g. certain DIY advices in the forums)

      Not sure what OP is referring to specifically but DIY electrical would fall under illegal wouldn't it?

      • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 10:28
        -2

        Not referring anything specifically, but I think you get the point.

      • mskeggs on 22/05/2024 - 10:52
        +2

        It is a breach of a regulation to do the work, not a criminal matter. And DIY electrical is obviously fine if you are accredited - discussing how to wire up a switch isn't breaking a law!

  • boomramada on 21/05/2024 - 14:35
    +3

    Good Ozb deals are all about price errors :)

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 14:48
      -8

      That would go under unethical.

      • jv on 21/05/2024 - 15:04
        +1

        Why?

        • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 15:40
          -3

          Because it's not a deal or a discount?

          • jv on 21/05/2024 - 17:09
            -3

            @Camelface: What isn't?

            • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 18:18

              @jv: Price errors

              • jv on 21/05/2024 - 18:35
                -1

                @Camelface: That's in the deal posting rules though.

                • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 13:49

                  @jv: The rules have nothing to do with what is illegal or unethical.

                  • jv on 23/05/2024 - 13:57

                    @SolitaryMan: 😕

                    • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 13:57

                      @jv: It’s not something to be happy or sad about, it’s a simple fact. No legislation in Australia references Ozbargain rules, for example.

                      • jv on 23/05/2024 - 13:58

                        @SolitaryMan:

                        No legislation in Australia references Ozbargain rules

                        What does that have to do with ethics ???

                        • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 14:01

                          @jv: The category is labelled as both illegal and/or unethical, however it actually has a lot to do with it. Laws are based on the codification of ethical principles, that’s why they exist. Stealing is unethical, hence it is also illegal.

                          • jv on 23/05/2024 - 14:02

                            @SolitaryMan:

                            Laws are based on the codification of ethical principles

                            No they aren't

                            • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 15:04

                              @jv: What are they based on then?

                              • WeeDeePotato on 23/05/2024 - 19:39

                                @SolitaryMan: I rarely agree with JV, but they’re right. The law is very often unethical. Just look at situations like we have now with whistleblowers getting locked up while actual war criminals going free, or for another example, two sets of animal cruelty laws depending on whether the animal is considered a pet or considered “useful” (livestock).

                                The law is created by those in power, to serve their interests. Yes it might tend to align with ethics in some cases, but it’s by no means mandatory.

                                • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:42

                                  @WeeDeePotato: Can you provide an example where law is unethical?

                                  • xdpx on 23/05/2024 - 21:54

                                    @Camelface: Are you limiting this invitation only to contemporary laws?

                                • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 20:39

                                  @WeeDeePotato: What whistleblower has been locked up recently?

                                  You’re also confusing the implementation of the law with the actual underlying codes.

                                  • WeeDeePotato on 24/05/2024 - 20:37

                                    @SolitaryMan: David McBride. There’s another that’s fighting to not be locked up too, Richard Boyle, for exposing the ATO’s tactics of chasing money owed

                                    https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102860814

                                    And I already provided an example in my original post

                                    • SolitaryMan on 25/05/2024 - 01:19
                                      -1

                                      @WeeDeePotato: David McBride wasn’t a whistleblower, he simply didn’t like the way individuals were being pursued for alleged war crimes. The military was clearly not covering anything up, so what did he blow the whistle on?

      • happydude on 21/05/2024 - 15:49
        +7

        Depending on the size of the corporation, not in my book.

        All corporations try and maximise profits. If the consumer wins one back against an overall profitable business that is fine by me. When I need something urgently and cannot wait for a sale, they win one over on me.

        • jv on 21/05/2024 - 17:10

          All corporations try and maximise profits.

          Not true, some corporations have a growth strategy.

          • payless69 on 22/05/2024 - 03:33

            @jv: Even comrades splash others cash to buy new comrades.

          • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 15:05

            @jv: Oh dear. What are they trying to grow if not revenue and eventually off the back of that longer-term earnings?

          • core101 on 23/05/2024 - 22:47

            @jv: Profit growth?

        • Sal in SA on 21/05/2024 - 18:08

          All businesses try and maximise profits.

        • Gdsamp on 21/05/2024 - 19:44
          +5

          Some companies will gladly get their employee wages paid for by the government and Not pay it back even if it is determined they didn't need the handout.

          by and large, jobkeeper was quite the rort.
          Great corporate socialism by Mr Frydenberg.

          Did the job tho - it kept people from the middle class voting block (who might otherwise have been out of a job) from having to to engage with the terribly underfunded social services (eg Centrelink) and gain some empathy for those doing it much tougher.

        • captbollocks on 21/05/2024 - 20:48
          +2

          Absolutely. After reading the synopsis of the movie "The Founder", ripping off Maccas would be absolutely fine after they stole the business and the name from the McDonalds brothers.

          But agree with some Ozbargainers that nothing below Line 2 is considered stealing. Buying a Netflix subscription overseas is like going to Japan and buying a cheaper, but still legit, Steam Deck or something.

          I think the only line I might waver on not crossing is:
          - if a local business had a price error, I'd probably even call them up and let them know.
          - similarly, if a cashier at a physical store/restaurant made a mistake which could possibly cost someone their job. Then I'd probably correct them. Also, actually seeing their gratitude is very satisfying, something you wouldn't get from an online issue.
          - if I SOMEHOW knew the product was stolen. I managed to recover a Nintendo Switch after a year that was according to the police was "Stolen through finding (on a bus)" and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

        • SolitaryMan on 23/05/2024 - 13:56
          +1

          How Aristotelian of you.

          The whole point of ethics is that it’s not just about what you want though, and trying to justify it by referencing large corporations actually shows that you know your behaviour is unethical - otherwise you wouldn’t try to justify it.

          • happydude on 23/05/2024 - 18:42

            @SolitaryMan: Ethics is the competing ideas of the good.

            I value me getting a good deal over a small detriment to a huge profitable corporation that has the tools and resources to accurately set pricing and fails to do so.

            I do not value the bargain the same way if it will cause a high degree of impact against a small retailer.

            Ethics are rarely objective. You are welcome to have a different view, but my view is not objectively unethical.

  • Muzeeb on 21/05/2024 - 14:37
    +3

    🥱

    Hi guys

    Not very inclusive in 2024

    Camelface here

    No shit Sherlock

    sensitive topic

    To you maybe.

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 14:46

      Thank you. Updated the salutation.

      • Kiro on 22/05/2024 - 05:57
        +4

        But what if someone doesn't identify them?

        • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:46
          -1

          If they don't want to be identified, then why would I need to address them?

          • Kiro on 23/05/2024 - 20:44

            @Camelface: As them

            • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 20:57

              @Kiro: yes but them is a pronoun, not a salutation.

              • Kiro on 24/05/2024 - 10:40

                @Camelface: What if people don't identify as a pair or gentleman?

    • Vita85 on 22/05/2024 - 13:53

      Inclusive? Time to stop watching/listening to the ABC. It's rotting your brain.

      "sensitive topic

      To you maybe."

      The lack of self awareness is staggering.

      • Muzeeb on 22/05/2024 - 14:13
        +1

        The lack of ability to quote using markdown is just as staggering.

      • brendanm on 22/05/2024 - 17:40

        Excuse me sweety, I identify as a chia pet and I'd like to be addressed as such.

  • shxhshzhz on 21/05/2024 - 14:38
    +11

    if the shop processes, packs and ships the order, they've approved it so it's legal and ethical

  • altomic on 21/05/2024 - 14:45
    +16

    Promote or purchase from companies that are known to have unethical business conducts such as employee exploitations, environmental negligence or poor production practices.

    australian banks, australian supemarkets, etc

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 21/05/2024 - 15:53

      doh

    • barge-in hunter on 21/05/2024 - 16:06
      +3

      Agreed - this calls out every single Amazon deal ever.

      Not saying it shouldn't be in the poll, but it feels like a separate line - 4 categories

  • AwesomeAndrew on 21/05/2024 - 14:50
    +9

    Stealing - No
    Buying illegal items - No
    Promoting illegal DIY work - No
    Using VPN to get it cheaper - Yes

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 16:02
      -1

      Awesome!

  • Chiyoko on 21/05/2024 - 15:00
    -8

    Those are all technically legal because who is the one to say it is actually a crime.

    Is a crime to do something that the government disallows by writing into their legislation? It clearly is not a crime. If you think it is a crime, then do you agree that the government can just take away your rights even without your consent, because that is what is happening. No one would consent to that and yet many people are fooled into thinking that something is a crime such as drinking whilst being underage in public…

    When you look at the ethics, the reality is the government has no authority bind the citizens because why does a document that was produced years ago before I was born bind me. How does that bind you? No one ever talks about it, nothing about that in law school either… It's a shame, but the reality is that it is possible that once people become aware that the laws are not what people think they are then the world will change for the better. What happens when we have conscription, who agreed to be conscripted, did you consent to that when you were born? If so, why can they take away your rights just like that?

    Clearly the actual answer is no one consented and therefore there is no authority for the government to conscript people, even though the judge which is just a government employee can state so, but they are just using legalese to fool the masses… This is why jury nullification is important because otherwise we are screwed if something bad happens in the future (believe me every day it seems like we might go to war accidentally because of foolish actions by the government sending helicopters, planes and warships into provocations in international waters, we don't need to be there for gods sake.). We just need to get enough people to be aware of what is a crime and then we can just state "not guilty" your honour.

    Let's face it, a majority of us just want to look for bargains, live a nice life. We don't want to go around killing other civilians in other countries just because the president/prime minister told us to. If the civilians on both sides just say no, then the war will not be able to proceed. That is what the institutions are most worried about. Why should you go to war to increase a billionaire's share of the global profits? It makes no sense. Everything is framed about protecting the country, but are things really that bad if we got invaded, you still pay taxes, in fact many of the European countries were invaded, England too at some point but the average citizen just continues paying taxes to the new government. Nothing really changes. Bleed the invaders dry by making it excessively difficult to collect taxes. This is what we should be preparing for, not getting ready to be conscripted overseas which is what the Australian Government continually spouts in the media…

    This is why certain things we do cannot be crimes.

    Anyway, returning to the issue above:
    In reality, your peers and society should be the ones to judge the conduct, not something that is randomly written onto a piece of paper and arbitrarily applied.

    The other thing is people think breaching terms and conditions of Netflix are a crime. That is not a crime…

    • El cheepo on 21/05/2024 - 16:28
      +7

      That was a really long way to say that none of the examples cited are illegal.

    • mskeggs on 21/05/2024 - 16:36
      +8

      Sounds like you're an anarchist who wishes to explicitly consent to who governs you.
      That is fine, and I think it is a good system, but the democracy we live in doesn't work like that, and your consent to be governed by the majority elected government is presumed. Since they by definition have majority or at least plurality support, your differing view holds no weight when it comes to laws or to wars.

      You might want to consider moving to another country, but I don't know any that are a good match for individual rights as you have described, and if you remain, the people with uniforms, guns and the jails will insist you follow their legislated laws, no matter how you feel on the matter.

    • FezMonkey on 22/05/2024 - 10:28

      r/im14andthisisdeep

    • Ughhh on 22/05/2024 - 19:54
      +2

      The only reason you're still alive and don't have a black eye, is because the Gov has stated its a crime.

  • freefall101 on 21/05/2024 - 15:05
    +10

    Those are some weird lines. I'm perfectly fine buying the last two items on sale (if I need them) and don't really care about people buying scooters and cheap Netflix subs, I'm a lot less ok with the exploitation of employees and I wouldn't buy something cheap just to resell it.

    Seems fairly straight forward. Don't commit fraud, don't steal and don't be a dick about things.

    • marsandlui on 21/05/2024 - 15:14
      +2

      Agree. I don't think the things below Line 1 are similar. For example, if there are only 2 left why can't I buy both? I can give it to a friend or keep it as spare. However, if there are 50 and I buy them all for re-sale that's kind of poor form.

      • fredk1000 on 22/05/2024 - 22:31
        +1

        If only two left and you will actually use it no problem.
        I had an experience last year,
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/801267
        I went hunting for a $1 drink bottle, I checked stock but someone bought 50+ of them all when I got there… Sometimes I dislike ozbargain a lot.
        FOMO maybe, or seeing a bargain and running around the place trying to get one, if I did not know (ie. check ozbargain religiously) I would not know the wiser.
        Like the the $1 drink bottle, still burns… sad…

        • beach bum on 23/05/2024 - 17:02

          Ok dude ,
          I feel your pain!

  • Benoffie on 21/05/2024 - 15:08
    +5

    Too many variables.

    I wont steal, but Ive been sailing the high seas for over 20 years. I put that down to persistent Australia tax.

    I dont really make decisions on company ethics.

    And yes, I will take the last 50% off item if there's 2 left and I can use it/give it to somebody

    • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:38

      What about the next person who would be desperately looking for just one item, like Arnie hunting for a aTurboman?

  • marsandlui on 21/05/2024 - 15:10
    +3

    A few other examples where I'm interested where you put them:
    1. Exploiting and then promoting a known bug in the process or website where you can get a discount.
    2. Cashing in on obvious pricing errors.
    3. Signing up to streaming services using different email addresses / credit cards to get the 14 / 30 days free.
    4. Sharing the cost of streaming accounts with strangers/ family.

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 15:39
      -2
      1. Exploiting and then promoting a known bug in the process or website where you can get a discount : Unethical
      2. Cashing in on obvious pricing errors.: Unethical
      3. Signing up to streaming services using different email addresses / credit cards to get the 14 / 30 days free. : Don't see any issues with that
      4. Sharing the cost of streaming accounts with strangers/ family. : Depends on the T&Cs.

      I'm not the judge.

  • pharkurnell on 21/05/2024 - 15:32

    TL.DR
    DILLIGAF
    POQ
    SNAFU

  • happydude on 21/05/2024 - 15:45

    Depends on the company.

    Lenovo, Sony, Apple etc can handle my abuse of student deals.

    But I do think people are grubs who do things like credit card churn for points and get upset when they can't get a pro-rata refund of an annual fee.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join