Law and morality depend on there being a high percentage of voluntary compliance - it's totally impractical to say that you can do anything you want, so long as you come up with a good rationalization and don't get caught.
I generally agree. The way you get a high percentage of voluntary compliance though is you make people want to comply. Morality doesn't get anyone to comply. People generally won't comply with burdensome or disagreeable rules for very long, regardless of the morals.
I'm reminded of all those beaten paths in the grass between two paved walkways in a park.
Like this. People know they shouldn't walk on the grass and they should stick to the paved walkways, but they'll take the shortcut through the grass eventually, until it's a beaten path. A bad society will put up signs or fences, argue morality, shame violators, try to punish, etc. Some society might just do nothing, and let there be a beaten path. But a good society will just add a paved walkway where the beaten path developed. If the people want to walk there, let them walk there. In other words, a society should mold its rules to how people are, not the other way around.
While it's a deviation, I think the Apple education discount is sort of like that. I'll keep using the discount when I find it fits according to how I interpret it, and go along that beaten path. Apple will either pave the way those like us, or they'll put up a fence, or they'll do nothing.
Regardless of whether someone reads the fine print in the terms of sale; the banner says, "Education Discount." I'm not going to school, I'm not a teacher, I'm not buying it for my child who is in school. Do I lie about being qualified, or do I walk away?
This is what I mean when I say you're doing Apple's job for them. Where did you get that only folks going to school, teachers, or folks buying for a child who is in school are qualified? I assume you intuited it from some prior experience or assumptions. But then you're no different than I am, we're both interpreting vague things.
You certainly did not actually go and read the terms of the sale, because that has a much larger and broader set of qualifications. For example, did you know that merely being on a school board or PTO/PTA qualifies? I didn't know that before I dug into it just now.
The policy is pretty vague actually. I think it's vague intentionally, so as to not be overly exclusive. Apple chose to make it vague. For example, the following situations might qualify depending on how you interpret the ambiguous words in those terms:
- a nurse enrolled in a mandatory continuing education course
- a family member of a home-schooled kid
- an employee of a private company partnered with a higher-education institution
Since Apple is leaving the doors wide open by leaving it up to us to decide, it is entirely reasonable to interpret it in any way. It's not our job to narrowly interpret Apple's policy. If Apple doesn't agree with my interpretation, it's on them to enforce it.
It may well be that enforcement is minimal (no locked gate, security guard, or video camera to protect the flowers in the front yard). The question is, what do I do in the face of that weak enforcement? Do I take the flowers because I want them, or do I leave them because they are my neighbor's property and he hasn't told me I can take them?
This question is settled. Going on to your neighbors property is trespass. Taking the flowers is larceny. There is no ambiguity here.
A more analogous example would be if your neighbor said you may barrow the potted flowers to bring to Mary's house to show her. But on the way to Mary's house to show her, you swing by Steve's house and show him too. So your neighbor granted you a vague permission and you interpreted it broadly. It's vague because it's unclear if showing Mary is the exclusive limitation, or a inclusive example. Neighbor didn't say
only to show Mary, but also didn't specify other permissible uses of the borrowed potted flowers.
If we say the neighbor didn't do enough to defend his flower bed, we're blaming the victim. Any talk of whether Apple benefits from selling its discounted products (a sale is still a sale) is besides the point - it's a rationalization. This is about whether people follow the rules voluntarily.
First, it's only blaming the victim if you victimize them. Apple is not a victim here. It's about two parties and a contract, and each party has certain duties. It's Apple's duty to enforce those terms of the contract that is favorable to them. It's not like Apple automatically applies all possible discounts when they're available - it's on the consumer to ask for the appropriate discount or present the appropriate coupon when applicable. Each party has obligations, and it's not the consumers obligation to police Apple's restrictions.
Second, I didn't say anything about whether Apple benefits. I agree it's beside the point. Apple could be losing money on every sale for all it matters. They wrote the terms, they impose the terms, there is no arms-length negotiation. They're not my terms, so I'm not responsible for them. That's all that matters to me.
