Is it theft

[Dags90]

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.

I find this to be the most reasonable analogy. There was a guy a while back who figured out that an airline rewards thing for pudding was worth much, much more than the pudding itself. So he bought a bunch of pudding, thousands of dollars worth and got something like a million airline miles. [footnote]http://www.snopes.com/business/deals/pudding.asp[/footnote]

 

[Yopaz]

Honestly I'm not sure. I don't like calling piracy theft, but I think this exploit could be called piracy. However it's all a massive grey area as far as the law is concerned, at least according to the law here. There's probably a 60-40 chance that this would be ruled as either theft or piracy because it exploited a loop hole rather than being something actively done to obtain this.

I don't blame EA for this, the people who used this exploit are to blame, though I would say EA should get someone to work over their codes.

 

[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.

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.

But these people didn't technically take anything, they copied something.

Also, your car example doesn't make sense, since it's about somebody taking something away from where it was, but downloading a game without permission means that you make a new digital copy of the game and nothing is taken away from anywhere. It would be more accurate as an analogy if the car remained in the driveway while you were riding around in it. Copying isn't the same thing as stealing. Making a new copy of a game doesn't mean that anything was stolen.

I maintain that calling this stealing doesn't work.

 

[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. ...

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.

The coupon for the games however, did in fact have "1 free purchase per customer" rule, which people ignored and chose to exploit a glitch in the company's system to recieve free items that they are not otherwise entitled to other than by means of purchase. In the case you described, the customer would be asked to return the product or pay for it and the employe who gave away the food would likely be fired as a result. The analogy fits well, as the store clerk's ignorance can be related to the glitch, and the pizza as the stolen games.

 

[DugMachine]

It doesn't matter if it was there screw up, it's still theft. That said, I don't condemn people who did it as I would have tried to swipe as many as I could had I known about this.

 

[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.

.
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.

In the EA case the codes were given out as compensation for taking a survey so consideration exists on both sides.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Why is it that when people post a Forum Topic with question, they already know that answer, but want people to rid them of guilt by giving the answer they want?

 

[Nielas]

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.

The coupon for the games however, did in fact have "1 free purchase per customer" rule, which people ignored and chose to exploit a glitch in the company's system to recieve free items that they are not otherwise entitled to other than by means of purchase. In the case you described, the customer would be asked to return the product or pay for it and the employe who gave away the food would likely be fired as a result. The analogy fits well, as the store clerk's ignorance can be related to the glitch, and the pizza as the stolen games.

Knowingly misrepresenting the actual discount you would get on the pizza would be fraud. Of course people could just claim ignorance of the fact that the coupons were 'one per purchase' which would invalidate the 'knowingly' part.

In the EA code case, I find it hard to believe that people actually thought that the codes were a blanket discount on everything in the EA store. Thus they most likely knowingly exploited a flaw in the system by providing codes that they knew were no longer valid.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

If you need to ask "is it stealing?" it's fucking stealing.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

My turn to make an analogy!

An artist is working at a stand full of his work. Business is slow and no one's around so he decides to go off to the side and answer the call of nature. While he's gone someone walks into his stand, photocopies every single piece of his work and walks out before he comes back.

Because he decided to leave his stand unattended apparently the person who photocopied all of his work was perfectly right to do so

 

[Genocidicles]

Yeah, it's theft.

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

 

[chadachada123]

My turn to make an analogy!

An artist is working at a stand full of his work. Business is slow and no one's around so he decides to go off to the side and answer the call of nature. While he's gone someone walks into his stand, photocopies every single piece of his work and walks out before he comes back.

Because he decided to leave his stand unattended apparently the person who photocopied all of his work was perfectly right to do so

Total false equivalence, since EA authorized all the purchases.

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

EA's fuck-up is none of our business: They were authorized purchases, they are legal. Your analogy has *unauthorized* photocopies.

 

[Genocidicles]

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

God these metaphors are getting closer and closer to just being a retelling of exactly what happened.

 

[chadachada123]

The coupon for the games however, did in fact have "1 free purchase per customer" rule, which people ignored and chose to exploit a glitch in the company's system to recieve free items that they are not otherwise entitled to other than by means of purchase. In the case you described, the customer would be asked to return the product or pay for it and the employe who gave away the food would likely be fired as a result. The analogy fits well, as the store clerk's ignorance can be related to the glitch, and the pizza as the stolen games.

That doesn't really matter, since the vast majority of people using the codes did not receive the code with the small print. These people likely *figured* that it was a 1-use code, but they would have no way of knowing for sure where the code even came from.

To further the analogy: If the pizza place DID include a "1 per customer" rule on the coupon, but half of the coupons ended up having that bit snipped off, AND the pizza place accepted those coupons anyway, then it isn't theft, by any stretch of the imagination.

I bolded the important bit. Consumer law may be different in Canada, but in the US, once a purchase is made without fraud/etc, it is legal and finalized, even if one side fucked up royally. This is true in most cases, and would be true in this case as well. If you're acting stupid and sell me a box of stuff for $10, when it should be $30, that's your own fault AND problem, not mine.

We had a similar case recently, actually, where a man got a car for thousands of dollars less than it should have been because the dealership screwed up their paperwork. And the man was absolutely in the right for US sale law (and that state's sale law as well).

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/09/man-arrested-for-accepting-a-good-deal-at-car-dealership/

 

[chadachada123]

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

God these metaphors are getting closer and closer to just being a retelling of exactly what happened.

Heh, you're right, but it's mostly because half of the people here are using false equivalences.

They're comparing apples to oranges by equating this to a case where someone leaves their own store unlocked/unattended.

In order for these analogies to hold at all, they need to have discounts involved along with incompetence on the part of the salesman, as opposed to the complete (fucking) absence of the salesman.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

My turn to make an analogy!

An artist is working at a stand full of his work. Business is slow and no one's around so he decides to go off to the side and answer the call of nature. While he's gone someone walks into his stand, photocopies every single piece of his work and walks out before he comes back.

Because he decided to leave his stand unattended apparently the person who photocopied all of his work was perfectly right to do so

Total false equivalence, since EA authorized all the purchases.

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

EA's fuck-up is none of our business: They were authorized purchases, they are legal. Your analogy has *unauthorized* photocopies.

Uh huh, because when EA was aware that people were using the code multiple times they just kept letting it happen? Wait, no they made it invalid. The artist's mistake was going to the washroom, EA's was making a code that could be used multiple times. The code let the multiple purchases go through, not them. In fact I'm pretty sure everyone using this was pretty aware they were doing it behind EA's back.

At the very least the copying the coupons in front of the artist part doesn't work. The second EA was aware of the problem they invalidated the code

 

[teebeeohh]

i once had a 100? cupon the cashier forgot to take after i used it. so i used it again in another store.
and while that does probably morally make me a thief i didn't steal anything.
it's kinda like the difference between not paying your taxes(illegally) and minimizing the amount you pay

 

[chadachada123]

My turn to make an analogy!

An artist is working at a stand full of his work. Business is slow and no one's around so he decides to go off to the side and answer the call of nature. While he's gone someone walks into his stand, photocopies every single piece of his work and walks out before he comes back.

Because he decided to leave his stand unattended apparently the person who photocopied all of his work was perfectly right to do so

Total false equivalence, since EA authorized all the purchases.

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

EA's fuck-up is none of our business: They were authorized purchases, they are legal. Your analogy has *unauthorized* photocopies.

Uh huh, because when EA was aware that people were using the code multiple times they just kept letting it happen? Wait, no they made it invalid. The artist's mistake was going to the washroom, EA's was making a code that could be used multiple times. The code let the multiple purchases go through, not them. In fact I'm pretty sure everyone using this was pretty aware they were doing it behind EA's back.

At the very least the copying the coupons in front of the artist part doesn't work. The second EA was aware of the problem they invalidated the code

I need to correct you again. EA authorized the purchases. Once EA's HIGHER UPS learned about the problem, they fixed it, but that's irrelevant. EA authorized the purchases: They accepted the codes.

Your analogy does not fit at all for this reason. Instead, say that the artist left for awhile because he's never around and always leaves the purchases for his friend/employee to take care of, and his friend/employee fucks up by accepting multiple coupons which the artist never said was wrong. Once the artist found out, he told the friend/employee the problem an-

Actually, the other guy was right, there's no point in carrying this analogy any further because it's just going to be a retelling of the original story.

EA fucked up, but EA accepted the payment. They SHOULDN'T have, but if their cashiers were being stupid (and since it's electronic, you can see where it became an issue), that's still EA as a whole being at fault, not the consumer, even if the consumer *should* have had reason to think it was a glitch.

Even to use your original analogy, it would require some incompetent/inept person standing there WATCHING the photocopies being produced but saying nothing, not even telling this photocopier to stop.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

My turn to make an analogy!

An artist is working at a stand full of his work. Business is slow and no one's around so he decides to go off to the side and answer the call of nature. While he's gone someone walks into his stand, photocopies every single piece of his work and walks out before he comes back.

Because he decided to leave his stand unattended apparently the person who photocopied all of his work was perfectly right to do so

Total false equivalence, since EA authorized all the purchases.

It'd be more akin to an artist handing out coupon codes, watching people copy the codes, and then still accepting multiple coupons from the same person *while this person is directly in front of them.*

EA's fuck-up is none of our business: They were authorized purchases, they are legal. Your analogy has *unauthorized* photocopies.

Uh huh, because when EA was aware that people were using the code multiple times they just kept letting it happen? Wait, no they made it invalid. The artist's mistake was going to the washroom, EA's was making a code that could be used multiple times. The code let the multiple purchases go through, not them. In fact I'm pretty sure everyone using this was pretty aware they were doing it behind EA's back.

At the very least the copying the coupons in front of the artist part doesn't work. The second EA was aware of the problem they invalidated the code

I need to correct you again. EA authorized the purchases. Once EA's HIGHER UPS learned about the problem, they fixed it, but that's irrelevant. EA authorized the purchases: They accepted the codes.

Your analogy does not fit at all for this reason. Instead, say that the artist left for awhile because he's never around and always leaves the purchases for his friend/employee to take care of, and his friend/employee fucks up by accepting multiple coupons which the artist never said was wrong. Once the artist found out, he told the friend/employee the problem an-

Actually, the other guy was right, there's no point in carrying this analogy any further because it's just going to be a retelling of the original story.

EA fucked up, but EA accepted the payment. They SHOULDN'T have, but if their cashiers were being stupid (and since it's electronic, you can see where it became an issue), that's still EA as a whole being at fault, not the consumer, even if the consumer *should* have had reason to think it was a glitch.

Even to use your original analogy, it would require some incompetent/inept person standing there WATCHING the photocopies being produced but saying nothing, not even telling this photocopier to stop.

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

 

[Catrixa]

...I feel like store policies exist, because most people default to trying to gain as many things as they can with as little loss to themselves as possible. In EA's case, they wrote some code to handle a store policy (fill out a survey, get a free game). Their code was bad (get as many free games as you want), so people took advantage. I'll be honest, I don't understand the "door's open, but no one is home" analogy, because someone WAS home (the coupon code existed, it just sucked). This isn't the same case as hacking a poorly secured website for free games (e.g. walking into an unlocked store), they followed the rules; those rules were just poorly implemented.

Honestly, the whole idea of punishment-for-allowed-practices is what keeps me extremely paranoid about playing online games (for example, I didn't play Diablo III while the invincible wizard glitch was still a thing, just in case I accidentally stumbled on it [I used both of those moves a lot] and got banned for "abusing a glitch." It's just not worth the risk, but Blizzard has 0 chance of making money off of me if I won't log on). I don't think I'd ever want to use Origin if there was a chance I could accidentally be punished for abusing a glitch in their system (I don't read the coupon right and use it to its full extent + they decide to "punish all those evil thieves"). I'm really happy they decided to call it an error and not punish people, because that's what it was.

Was it morally wrong of people to use it with the knowledge that they were taking advantage of a glitch? Maybe, in probably the same way it would be morally wrong to take advantage of the employee who didn't get the memo that it's only "one coupon per customer." If you see corporations as giant, faceless behemoths who exist to suck money out of you, you probably wouldn't think much of it. If you see corporations as cuddly giants just trying to survive in a cruel world, this is probably akin to murdering a horde of babies. Or you're somewhere in between. But asking about whether or not this is a crime isn't really addressing the problem. The problem is: is it moral to willfully take advantage of someone? How does your answer change with knowledge about that person or corporation?