I think a lot of the people reacting hysterically here need to re-read exactly what was said here:
"So, arguably if you go into this game knowing you are supposed to be paying for these weapons and you notice a glitch allows you to accumulate them without paying, that's theft as well," she said. "But it is arguable because it's a new area."
At no point is it said that this is actually legally theft. Ms Ludlum is merely speculating based on UK law as it stands and making a theoretical application to a potentially interesting legal area. As she says, this is a new area of law, and surely it's necessary, and even wise to speculate as to how it interacts with the law as is?
She is correct that it could be considered as theft (if people really care enough I can provide the names of the cases that have provided the law on this issue), although it depends very much on whether the courts consider that resources in Dead Space come under one of the definitions of property that can be stolen. The fact that EA have said that they are alright with people using the glitch doesn't technically make any difference within the law. If the glitch abuse is held by the courts to be assumption of control of the property of another, then EA's consent doesn't matter.
What does matter is the intent of the individual. The analogy that was used to teach me that issue was this:
'Somebody goes into a shop with the intention of stealing items. They take things from the shelves and put them in their basket, but change their mind and put them back before leaving'
This is still legally theft: by placing the items in their basket with the intention of stealing them (even though the shopkeeper implicitly consents to customers taking items off the shelves), they had assumed control of another's property with dishonest intent. So, in the Dead Space case, if you were to unknowingly use the glitch, then that would be fine, but deliberate abuse may be a different matter.
Ultimately, this is speculation. This is, as she says, a new area of law and there are no explicit judgements from the courts on the matter. Until a case like this is actually decided, all that can be said about how UK law would view this sort of glitch abuse is speculation.
So all this lawyer is doing is her job, to consider how the courts may rule on an issue, and look at possible ways that the law could work. To condemn her for that is, in my opinion, a very short-sighted response to what should be a very interesting debate.
I was never gonna buy the DLC packs, but to be honest even without the farming, you do get a fair amount of resources, but scavenging a couple extra times is really nice for some of those new toys you wanna get