Yes it's theft but EA has to be willing to come to terms with the fact they screwed up BIG time on their end; which quickly came back to bite them in the arse.
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 said: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
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.chadachada123 said: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).The Almighty Aardvark said: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
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.Kwil said: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.
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.Evil Smurf said:not theft, They allowed it so you are not in the wrong
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.Merkavar said: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.
Fair enough, and when you put it that way, it does make it seem a bit more morally-black than I had first considered.The Almighty Aardvark said: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.chadachada123 said: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).The Almighty Aardvark said: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
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.
Actually, you do have a legal obligation as what you describe constitutes shoplifting.DoomyMcDoom said: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.Psykoma said: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.
Agreed. Additionally the courts can rule that Steve needs to pay Bob.Nielas said: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.TheIronRuler said:.antidonkey said: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.
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.
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.Genocidicles said:Yeah, it's theft.
But they stole from a collection of assholes, so it doesn't matter.
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.BiscuitTrouser said: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.
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...Eclectic Dreck said:Actually, you do have a legal obligation as what you describe constitutes shoplifting.DoomyMcDoom said: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.Psykoma said: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.
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.Queen Michael said:But these people didn't technically take anything, they copied something.Kwil said:[I also think this car analogy is awful, I'm sorry.]Queen Michael said:[...]tl;dr: It's only theft when somebody loses a possession because somebody else took it. That's not what happened here.
[...]
I maintain that calling this stealing doesn't work.