Is it theft

[chadachada123]

I'm assuming that EA uses a program to automatically verify the codes? I'm pretty sure no employees who could do anything about it were aware of the exploit until they did something about it. I'm not denying that they fucked up, they quite clearly did. They however weren't aware of the fuck up and telling people to go on doing it.

Just because they fucked up doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable to take advantage of the fact

Oh, MORALLY? I'd put it in a moral grey area just because EA is evil to begin with. They now know a bit what it feels like to be reamed, which is nice to see. I was talking from a legal standpoint, where I'm fairly certain it was legal for at least the bulk of users that got an additional game or two (or five).

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I'm assuming that EA uses a program to automatically verify the codes? I'm pretty sure no employees who could do anything about it were aware of the exploit until they did something about it. I'm not denying that they fucked up, they quite clearly did. They however weren't aware of the fuck up and telling people to go on doing it.

Just because they fucked up doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable to take advantage of the fact

Oh, MORALLY? I'd put it in a moral grey area just because EA is evil to begin with. They knew a bit what it feels like to be reamed, which is nice to see. I was talking from a legal standpoint, where I'm fairly certain it was legal for at least the bulk of users that got an additional game or two (or five).

Yeah, I wasn't talking about legally. I should probably specified that given the topic. As well as bringing up that I wouldn't consider it theft. It's akin to theft, but it doesn't fit into the definition.

As much as I understand the hate for EA, the fact that the deal EA was giving out ($20 worth of games for doing a survey) was actually an uncharacteristically nice deal for them makes me think worse of people taking advantage of it.

 

[Evil Smurf]

not theft, They allowed it so you are not in the wrong

 

[gravian]

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.

If you steal a car, you've stolen it. If the cops pick you up in it, you will be charged with grand theft auto.. even if you intended to refuel it and park it back in the same spot and the owner is out of the country. Even if the cops don't pick you up in it and you manage to return it, you *still* stole the car.

Interestingly enough under British law you wouldn't be stealing the car as long as you intend to bring it back without materially degrading its value. As long as you refuel it, any of the parts aren't materially worn from using it and its brought back where it was found you could technically take it without permission. And as long as it doesn't inconvenience the owner. So if you crashed your car while your neighbour was on holiday and you used their car to drive to work, as long as you don't cause any meaningful wear and refuel it you wouldn't be stealing it. Even if you know the neighbour wouldn't give you permission anyway, as long as it is not "for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to outright (permanent) taking or disposal", you'd be fine.

With the games coupon though, once you realise that you can download other games for free, when EA has said the coupon only covers one, you would be guilty of theft if you then proceeded to download more, as you are dishonestly taking items to which you are not entitled to. You know that it isn't what the company intended (the intent) but you do so anyway (the action), and by fulfilling both parts you would be committing the crime.

Just like if you pay for shopping, get back home and realise that some items were not paid for. Even though you weren't aware at the time, you took the items unlawfully by not paying for them (the action), but if you realise this and decide not to go back and pay for them you would have the intent of theft and would be committing the crime.

 

[DkLnBr]

I once got locked inside an EB games when the employee went for lunch. He made a mistake, but It would have been still stealing if I took some games. Or how about if there was a glitch in an ATM that allowed you to deposit infinite amounts of money into your account, that would still be stealing even though its a computer glitch.
Really all this is, is just the amazing power of rationalization

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

not theft, They allowed it so you are not in the wrong

While i agree its not theft, taking something that someone doesnt want you to take just because you can purely for personal gain cant possibly be twisted as a "good thing". If youre doing something with someone elses creation that that someone doesnt like or want against their wishes (even if they made a mistake) youre definitely in the wrong. It doesnt have to be stealing to be wrong. I dont have to take something to to do something with it thats against the wishes of the owner. And doing something against the owners wishes for your own gain is pretty much always morally wrong.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I just started the video, saw a guy sitting in front of camera, and talking into it, and I was 10385820284% done. The 'Angry Birds' plushes did not help his case of 'I am worth listening to'.

 

[ManOwaRrior]

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.

To me, theft still involves something being taken away from someone. You know, that's why we don't like it. I don't care if the thief now has stuff he didn't pay for. I care about the fact that I don't have said stuff anymore.
So this here might be piracy, if anything, but not theft.
And no, piracy is not theft. It not being theft doesn't mean it's ok, it just means that it is something different.
Like when you manage to sneak into the cinema and watch a movie without buying a ticket, or using the train without buying one. Not theft, but still illegal, same here. People who used the code multiple times essentially used a service the weren't allowed to.

 

[sethisjimmy]

No it isn't theft, and I don't need any analogies to explain.
For one thing, it was a loophole provided by EA themselves, who choose to uphold the people who took advantage of the loophole.
For another, downloading multiple copies of the same thing isn't theft. I know you're all thinking "that's just pirate justification". No. Theft taking something and leaving nothing.
I'm not justifying anything. Did the coupon users break a TOS agreement by misusing the coupons? Probably, yes. Does piracy have an effect on profit? Yes.
However, pirating is a whole different crime that has nothing to do with theft.

The people who used the coupons to get multiple games shouldn't be punished for anything. They probably could be legally, but I think it would be immoral and a PR disaster for EA.

 

[chadachada123]

I'm assuming that EA uses a program to automatically verify the codes? I'm pretty sure no employees who could do anything about it were aware of the exploit until they did something about it. I'm not denying that they fucked up, they quite clearly did. They however weren't aware of the fuck up and telling people to go on doing it.

Just because they fucked up doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable to take advantage of the fact

Oh, MORALLY? I'd put it in a moral grey area just because EA is evil to begin with. They knew a bit what it feels like to be reamed, which is nice to see. I was talking from a legal standpoint, where I'm fairly certain it was legal for at least the bulk of users that got an additional game or two (or five).

Yeah, I wasn't talking about legally. I should probably specified that given the topic. As well as bringing up that I wouldn't consider it theft. It's akin to theft, but it doesn't fit into the definition.

As much as I understand the hate for EA, the fact that the deal EA was giving out ($20 worth of games for doing a survey) was actually an uncharacteristically nice deal for them makes me think worse of people taking advantage of it.

Fair enough, and when you put it that way, it does make it seem a bit more morally-black than I had first considered.

Now I fear that EA themselves will head farther into the dark side because of this...Hm..

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

Actually, you do have a legal obligation as what you describe constitutes shoplifting.

 

[Childe]

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.

Agreed. Additionally the courts can rule that Steve needs to pay Bob.

OT: Massive screw up on companies fault but the people that took advantage of the error are still in a moral grey area and are dicks

 

[Baron_Rouge]

Yeah, it's theft.

But they stole from a collection of assholes, so it doesn't matter.

I hope you're being sarcastic here...whether or not EA is a collection of assholes, that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the full protection of the law. I mean, ignoring the issue of whether or not this was theft, you're saying that it does't matter if you steal something from someone so long as that person is an asshole, and that's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Catrixa]

If youre doing something with someone elses creation that that someone doesnt like or want against their wishes (even if they made a mistake) youre definitely in the wrong. It doesnt have to be stealing to be wrong. I dont have to take something to to do something with it thats against the wishes of the owner. And doing something against the owners wishes for your own gain is pretty much always morally wrong.

Forgive me for calling you out on this, but I feel like this is the entire argument in favor of all of those anti-web 2.0 laws. I think in some cases this is true (content creators want to eat too), but I don't believe this is true in every single case.

Some examples:
-People wanting to use their PS3 as a Linux server after that capability was removed by Sony. Is is wrong of that person to want a cheap, powerful Linux server? What if they bought the PS3, but didn't install it as their Linux box until after Sony pulled that capability? Should they still be denied the ability to use the device for the reasons they purchased it?
-You make a video of you skydiving and put it to a song you purchased. You then show all of your friends your video. You aren't using the song as the creator intended, but have you done anything wrong?
-You take characters and settings from a popular fantasy novel and write a new story about them, then post it on the internet on a fan site. The author didn't want someone else using their characters, but have you done anything wrong?
-You download a game with no built in mod capabilities, but want to add some new levels for you and your friends. The developer does not want their product to be edited, but you're getting more enjoyment out of the game they've made. Is this wrong?

I really don't mean to sound preachy, and you may have been just using hyperbole here, but I really feel like the solution here isn't black and white. This is an issue, and it doesn't have a simple "using this product as it was not intended is wrong!" solution. I do believe piracy can become a problem (I've known people who would criticize me for buying games when I could more easily get them for free), but I also think it can become a solution (even in its most basic form, it can still expose people to media they would have otherwise not touched).

I'm sorry this is wandering off topic, I was just really bothered by this idea.

 

[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.

Actually, you do have a legal obligation as what you describe constitutes shoplifting.

Not if you didn't hide the goods, and the person at the til saw them and actively did not charge you for them, that is their mistake, not yours... At least where I'm from, you can't ask the person who you just didn't charge for the goods you allowed them to leave the premesis with even after they've brought them to you for purchase, I've been in the position where a co-worker of mine let someone walk out with stuff, the employee was considered the thief, not the person they let walk out, because it was their responsibility to charge people for things they purchased...

Might've been a mistake made by those involved in the legal system, I'm no lawyer.

 

[McMullen]

If you knowingly acted in bad faith by abusing the glitch, it was theft. The only difference between this and the usual kind is that the security was nonexistent, so it was easier.

As for who's to blame, it is well established that people will steal things that they could have paid a penny for, so theft is a foregone conclusion in the absence of security. Simply put, there's a difference between being a victim and being careless. Therefore the responsibility for the incident sits with EA.

 

[Signa]

I don't think it was stealing because I think it was part of their plan.

They have the option to stop it, and undo the damage from their mistake, but they didn't. Also, coupon exploitations aren't a new thing. Someone would have made a law or something by now if it really was stealing, and not just cleaver bending of rules.

 

[BeerTent]

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

[I also think this car analogy is awful, I'm sorry.]

But these people didn't technically take anything, they copied something.
[...]
I maintain that calling this stealing doesn't work.

The bolded text caught my eye here. While I don't think of what happened with EA is theft. (An error on their service.) Piracy is still theft. Although while nothing physical is lost, (Technically) money that normally would have been sent by legitimate buyers has been lost.

Sure, your only making a digital, non-existent copy of something, but for example, if you download(copy) my game, "Super awesome shooter guy," also a game you wanted pretty badly, I've lost a sale. I've lost the $20 my publisher would have made, and the royalties associated with that $20 purchase. Why would you buy a "Super awesome shooter guy" license? You've already enjoyed it.

Same goes with my $20 piece of software, "Office Editor." Why buy a license, when you have a working cracked copy?

My publisher will never see your $20 purchase, My company will not see $10, and the 5¢ from royalties in my personal wallet will never be. I would constitute that as theft.

 

[klown]

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.

I don't think that is within the same realm. I can steal your car because you left it unlocked, but it's still a crime and I am punished for the crime. EA had a bug in their system that people exploited to obtain things they were not meant to, but they didn't really commit a "crime". I think just removing the games, and fixing the bug should be enough for most people who didn't make any kind of illegal profit off of the bug.

Yes to me it's still stealing, but it's not worth any more punishment than just removing anything they stole from their system.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes It's theft but 'EA is evil' and 'Copyright is wrong' and 'electronic goods are special' so people aren't going to see it that way. Ea is going to easily be able to stop this by just looking up the payment method and removing the right to use every additional game bought after the first. Watch as people then claim EA is steal from them, despite it being quiet clear in their ToS that they can do this at their own discretion to anyone for any reason.