Is it theft

[Merkavar]

So the questiion was asked in this you tube video. Look in the comments for inspiration.

Basically my understanding was that in the past week EA gave out a code that let you get download a game but there was a glitch and the code let you download other games for free.

Basically the question is, is this stealing? is exploiting a glitch like this stealing?


I think it is but A LOT of people claim it isnt stealing cause EA messed up.

What do you think?


I think that no matter if its physical or electronic there were people taking a object with value with out permission. If that isnt stealing then finding a house with its doors unlocked and taking something cant be theft.

Also people seem to think that the games should just be removed. But isnt that like saying a car theif can just give back the car to avoid punishment.

 

[Psykoma]

If you walk into a store, the employees are nowhere to be found, the security scanner at the doors isn't working that day, and you walk out without paying for a dozen games in your hands, is it theft? You're only able to do it because the company screwed up, so it can't be theft right?
No, it's still theft, even if the company screwed up thier security procedures.



Yes, they exploited the glitch to steal the games.

 

[Eleuthera]

It's theft, but I agree that just disabling the games should be enough.

It's pretty similar to a banking error that deposits something in your account. You'll have to pay it back but I don't think extra punishment is nescessary.

 

[Dandark]

Yes I would call it theft although some people may not have realized that they were only supposed to use it once. To be honest I would still say it's more EAs fault for messing up so badly but yeah, you could call it theft.

Btw I don't want to get into the arguments about how it's not theft because they didn't lose anything, you could argue that but I am pretty sure the OP means more "was it ok for them to take all those games or should it be condemned?" rather than if it actually clarifies as stealing or not.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

If you walk into a store, the employees are nowhere to be found, the security scanner at the doors isn't working that day, and you walk out without paying for a dozen games in your hands, is it theft? You're only able to do it because the company screwed up, so it can't be theft right?
No, it's still theft, even if the company screwed up thier security procedures.



Yes, they exploited the glitch to steal the games.

I see it more along the lines of, you go into a store, bring a bunch of items to the front, and the cashier doesn't ring all of it in, and lets you leave without paying for a bunch of stuff, that's not theft, that's an error on the side of the store/company in your favour, you have no legal obligation to return the items they neglected to charge you for, and the idiot on cash gets punished for being a dipshit.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

herp derp, no it's copyright infringement.
/incredibly annoyed sarcasm.

 

[Queen Michael]

It's not theft. Theft is when someone loses a possession because it's been taken by somebody else. I'd say this is unauthorized use of a dowload code, which is a separate thing
People; we have to stop applying terms that don't fit. Trying to discuss i this is theft or not, probably because that automatically solves the question of whether it's immoral or not, is stupid. It's like trying to decide whether Irn Bru is wine or beer.
Honestly! How can it be theft when nobody's lost any belongings?

tl;dr: It's only theft when somebody loses a possession because somebody else took it. That's not what happened here.

 

[chadachada123]

Fuck no it isn't theft.

There would be absolutely no way to know why the codes worked more than once: But it was a promotional code that continued to work for multiple attempts.

It is not at all analogous to theft from a store while people weren't around, SINCE EA IS TELLING YOU STRAIGHT-UP THAT IT'S OKAY.

Here's an analogy that fits: A store has a promotional coupon that can be printed online. You print multiple copies, and even if the store has a policy to prevent the acceptance of printed copies, it is on the STORE to uphold the policy.

If the store is fine with letting you use the coupon multiple times right in front of them, then it doesn't matter what the coupon says. It's the store's fault for not paying attention.

I've worked in retail before: If we accept a coupon, then we accepted the damn coupon. That's what happened to EA: They kept accepting the same coupon because of incompetence. It's on them.

 

[antidonkey]

Legally: No
Morally: Yes

One could argue that it falls into the theft of services category since people were taking advantage of an exploit. Will there be charges pressed and people sent to jail....nope. However, there might game some games taken away from those that abused the system.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Legally: No
Morally: Yes

One could argue that it falls into the theft of services category since people were taking advantage of an exploit. Will there be charges pressed and people sent to jail....nope. However, there might game some games taken away from those that abused the system.

.
I hate it when people separate it between a moral and a legal issue.

The company fucked up and it is not theft.
Case in point, if a company makes a contract with you and in doing the contract forgets to write that they demand X, after both sides sign the contract they can't go back on their word and demand X. In this situation EA had effectively given out free games for everyone who can use that exploit, and it is their responsibility and not the one of the people who exploited their temporary incompetence.

 

[antidonkey]

Legally: No
Morally: Yes

One could argue that it falls into the theft of services category since people were taking advantage of an exploit. Will there be charges pressed and people sent to jail....nope. However, there might game some games taken away from those that abused the system.

.
I hate it when people separate it between a moral and a legal issue.

The company fucked up and it is not theft.
Case in point, if a company makes a contract with you and in doing the contract forgets to write that they demand X, after both sides sign the contract they can't go back on their word and demand X. In this situation EA had effectively given out free games for everyone who can use that exploit, and it is their responsibility and not the one of the people who exploited their temporary incompetence.

I'm pretty sure it was not EA's intent to give out multiple free games to each individual. The fact that you can't see why it's wrong to take advantage of their mistake makes me a little sad for humanity. It also tells me that you're young. Let's use your contract example:

Bob and Steve are doing business with each other. Bob says he'll provide Steve access to his services for 6 months at a rate of $25 a month. When the contract arrives, Steve notices the price of $25 a month is left off meaning should he sign, he gets the services for free. Steve is fully aware that Bob really did not intend to give away his services. If Steve signs, there's nothing Bob can do about but that doesn't mean Steve isn't a gigantic asshole for taking advantage of the situation.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Legally: No
Morally: Yes

One could argue that it falls into the theft of services category since people were taking advantage of an exploit. Will there be charges pressed and people sent to jail....nope. However, there might game some games taken away from those that abused the system.

.
I hate it when people separate it between a moral and a legal issue.

The company fucked up and it is not theft.
Case in point, if a company makes a contract with you and in doing the contract forgets to write that they demand X, after both sides sign the contract they can't go back on their word and demand X. In this situation EA had effectively given out free games for everyone who can use that exploit, and it is their responsibility and not the one of the people who exploited their temporary incompetence.

I'm pretty sure it was not EA's intent to give out multiple free games to each individual. The fact that you can't see why it's wrong to take advantage of their mistake makes me a little sad for humanity. It also tells me that you're young. Let's use your contract example:

Bob and Steve are doing business with each other. Bob says he'll provide Steve access to his services for 6 months at a rate of $25 a month. When the contract arrives, Steve notices the price of $25 a month is left off meaning should he sign, he gets the services for free. Steve is fully aware that Bob really did not intend to give away his services. If Steve signs, there's nothing Bob can do about but that doesn't mean Steve isn't a gigantic asshole for taking advantage of the situation.

.
Bob is liable for letting such a mistake slip by. The losses inflicted by his mistake are things that all businessmen are threatened with if they fuck up. When you lose you need to own up to the consequences, we don't give you a bailout worth billi- Oh wait, scratch that thought.

 

[GiantRaven]

Is it stealing when prices get mislabeled on sites like Amazon and people buy things for cheap before the mistake is rectified?

If, hypothetically speaking, a store wants to run a 50% off sale, but accidentally programs the till system to calculate a 75% discount instead. Is that the customer's fault when they pay for their goods?

It might be a massive dick move to take advantage of such a situation, but I couldn't possibly say it was stealing.

 

[Nielas]

I'm pretty sure it was not EA's intent to give out multiple free games to each individual. The fact that you can't see why it's wrong to take advantage of their mistake makes me a little sad for humanity. It also tells me that you're young. Let's use your contract example:

Bob and Steve are doing business with each other. Bob says he'll provide Steve access to his services for 6 months at a rate of $25 a month. When the contract arrives, Steve notices the price of $25 a month is left off meaning should he sign, he gets the services for free. Steve is fully aware that Bob really did not intend to give away his services. If Steve signs, there's nothing Bob can do about but that doesn't mean Steve isn't a gigantic asshole for taking advantage of the situation.

.
Bob is liable for letting such a mistake slip by. The losses inflicted by his mistake are things that all businessmen are threatened with if they fuck up. When you lose you need to own up to the consequences, we don't give you a bailout worth billi- Oh wait, scratch that thought.

Actually contract law will disagree with you. First, since Steve is not paying anything, Bob can easily argue that no consideration is offered and thus there is no actual contract. Second, a contract can be invalidated if there is a sufficiently blatant mistake that would unjustly enrich one of the parties. Courts do not like when people try to exploit typos like that.

In this case, I would first look to see if the initial agreement for the coupon stated that it was one-use only. If it was a one-use only coupon, people who used it multiple times would be committing fraud.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I'm pretty sure it was not EA's intent to give out multiple free games to each individual. The fact that you can't see why it's wrong to take advantage of their mistake makes me a little sad for humanity. It also tells me that you're young. Let's use your contract example:

Bob and Steve are doing business with each other. Bob says he'll provide Steve access to his services for 6 months at a rate of $25 a month. When the contract arrives, Steve notices the price of $25 a month is left off meaning should he sign, he gets the services for free. Steve is fully aware that Bob really did not intend to give away his services. If Steve signs, there's nothing Bob can do about but that doesn't mean Steve isn't a gigantic asshole for taking advantage of the situation.

.
Bob is liable for letting such a mistake slip by. The losses inflicted by his mistake are things that all businessmen are threatened with if they fuck up. When you lose you need to own up to the consequences, we don't give you a bailout worth billi- Oh wait, scratch that thought.

Actually contract law will disagree with you. First, since Steve is not paying anything, Bob can easily argue that no consideration is offered and thus there is no actual contract. Second, a contract can be invalidated if there is a sufficiently blatant mistake that would unjustly enrich one of the parties. Courts do not like when people try to exploit typos like that.

In this case, I would first look to see if the initial agreement for the coupon stated that it was one-use only. If it was a one-use only coupon, people who used it multiple times would be committing fraud.[/quote]
.
You made me go into two pitfalls here that do not act similarly to the contract with EA:
Number 1 - There is no monetary transaction.
Number 2 - This is for a duration of 6 months while these games are redeemed with the coupons only once and the user don't have to constantly pay each month.

 

[The Scotsman72]

From my RCMP training and both criminoligy and law studies, I can confirm that this is, in fact, illegal. This is like a shop owner leaving the back door open to all his other merchandise and someone runs in and grabs everything of value. You were never entitled to any of said merchandise and is therefore is a commited offense of theft. FYI, just saying "I didn't know" is NOT a valid excuse to ANY crime.

 

[theultimateend]

If you walk into a store, the employees are nowhere to be found, the security scanner at the doors isn't working that day, and you walk out without paying for a dozen games in your hands, is it theft? You're only able to do it because the company screwed up, so it can't be theft right?
No, it's still theft, even if the company screwed up thier security procedures.

Yes, they exploited the glitch to steal the games.

You do realize the many levels that this is not an accurate example, right?

@OP: Eh, the consensus on the escapist will be that it is theft and basically a step under physically assaulting toddlers.

You'll see a few people point out the differences between actual physical theft but they'll be largely drowned out by folks who can't peel the two apart. There is no evolution of the debate here.

Is it wrong? Probably on some level, but the impact overall would likely be neutral or positive as far as EA's bottom line goes.

Neutral in that most people doing this would never have purchased those games anyways, the amount of people lost is too small to notice on their book keeping, and finally those that may have disliked them vehemently acquired games they otherwise wouldn't have tried and the experience may drive them to less disdain towards the company.

It's advertising, which brings me to my favorite tidbit from the incident. The Monday following it the COO announced during a meeting "Everyone say hello to the gal who gave away a ton of free games this weekend!"

So if it is any consolation the person (which surprised me, I figured this would fall on a lot of people) responsible got embarrassed in front of all her colleagues .

And finally for the sake of clarity I used it to get Dead Space 2 (I thought it was a coupon, didn't realize any survey was involved or that it should be single use etc). Still haven't played it and would literally have never purchased it, but it did make me kinda happy till I found out it was a mistake.

Then the luster was gone, before that I was thinking I might buckle and buy Sim City, but now I'm back on the fence. We'll see how the rest of 2012 goes.

Edit: Just actually went back and read the thread, apparently I was pretty spot on. A lot of people don't know the difference between theft and piracy. That's a shame, you'd think that it would be obvious. I'm almost ashamed to need to explain it.

If you steal something from a store they literally lose a product that they paid for AND cannot sell because it no longer exists. You have literally taken money from them.

If you copy software you are damaging potential revenue, it is an attack on emotions more than wallets.

Most crime is caused by an untapped market or an unjust society, in the case of piracy products like Steam can greatly reduce it. This is also why bitching about this is nonsense, I've gotten quite a few games for free on steam. Dozens in fact, it is not reasonable to assume that folks using this for a single game would know what they did. There isn't a precedence for it seeming weird.

ANYWHO, likely not to be back, it's like debating climate change or gravity, some folks just think that they can make it different by saying it is enough times.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

From my RCMP training and both criminoligy and law studies, I can confirm that this is, in fact, illegal. This is like a shop owner leaving the back door open to all his other merchandise and someone runs in and grabs everything of value. ...

I really wish ppl would stop making this kind of analogy which does not match the situation at all.

If you want a real world business analogy:

A pizzeria prints "5$ off any orders" coupons and forgets to include a "only one coupon per customer" clause on it.

a customer shows up with 6 coupons and orders 30$ worth of pizza.

is that theft? no, it isn't.


the difference is that in this case, ppl were free to create as many coupons as they wanted, and that the system was automated rather than having to get past an employee that could argue the one-per-customer policy.

 

[Entitled]

Bullshit. The idea of somebody needing to lose anything for it to be theft only came into being when pirates wanted to justify their behavior. Theft is simply taking something that isn't yours without permission.

Just because the difference between theft and copyright infringement is only clear in certain situations, (such as piracy, or this case here) doesn't stop the difference from existing.

If every case of "taking something that isn't yours without permission" would be theft, then it would be theft to pick a fruit from a tree in the middle of a forest without anyone's permission, or to take a photo of me without my permission, or to quote this post without my permission.