Quick question, is this stealing?

[Coffinshaker]

I'd say no.

Think of it this way... You buy a box. It is locked. Something is in the box. But you must purchase a key separately from the original purchase to open said box. You use a hairpin instead and open the box. That is not stealing. You had the contents of the box already. When you purchased the box, it contained other items, and despite the request for a second transaction, you still have in your possession the items from the first purchase. I'd wager the key is a convenience item, not a mandatory secondary transaction.

Therefore, to open the box and retrieve the items included in your original purchase through cleaver means is NOT stealing.

However, if you SIGNED an agreement to never open the box unless you purchased the key... that'd be another story. Probably not so much as stealing as a breach of contract though.

 

[DracoSuave]

So let me get this straight.

Did the Steam package come with a free copy of American McGee's Alice? If so, then you got the Project Ten Dollar stuff you're supposed to get with a new copy.

If we're talking about the Weapons of Madness and Dresses pack, that's not project ten dollar stuff, and you're most definately stealing it.

Why is it I suspect that the OP's not telling the whole story?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

I'd not say stealing, no. It's akin to buying a car from a dealer and trying to hit the lights, realizing there's no spark and then the smarmy jerk tells you that light fuses weren't part of your original deal, those're ten bucks more. IF the data is on the disc, the 'DLC' is already finished, the shmucks are just gouging you for another ten spot.

 

[Sikratua]

That is like giving you a box and saying that you only own the box, not what's inside it.
Insanely stupid. I say that you bought that data, the moment they gave it to you. It is yours to use.

The key word is "use." He did not "buy that data," according to the law. What he bought was the ability to utilize that data, as per a standard EULA. Pretty much every EULA in existance has provisions against altering data, which is what he did. So, not only is he guilty of theft, he's also guilty of breech of contract.

no... actually Piracy is piracy, theft is theft, theft requires a physical copy being taken, you must take something FROM someone so they don't have it anymore, Piracy is still illegal, but it doesn't make it theft.

you should add one more thing to that list.

"are you taking something from a person/company/conglomerate if yes, theft, if no, piracy

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. At no point in that description do the words "So the rightful owner can't use it" appear. Piracy IS theft, whether you want to try to justify using other language, or not. Frankly, your last point is a load of bollocks, mate.

That said, it's people like this guy who are the examples given on why DRM exists.

 

[zehydra]

Hi everyone, this is about Project Ten Dollar.

So, I recently bought Alice: Madness Returns when it was released some time ago on Steam. Well, I was told there was a neat little DLC that gave me extras. EA pushing Origin so hard and didn't put it on Steam so I couldn't buy it, this DLC is like most/all of EA's, it's following the Project Ten Dollar template.

For those that are unfamiliar with this, it's essentially EA having DLC on the disc/data you purchased. So you still pay for it, but instead of downloading it, they simply 'unlock it' for you. So, as it was, it was actually there, I just couldn't use it. Well, being on PC, I just changed the 'Engine.ini' file to 'unlock' it.

So, I was curious, would you consider this a theft?

Yes, as I'm assuming there is a way for PC gamers to buy it, or it wouldn't be on the PC disk. Even if there is no possible way you could buy it, it's still stealing, but in that case I don't believe that it is wrong. Kind of like stealing bread so you don't starve. Stealing: yes. Wrong: no.

But what is the point in purchasing a game disk if you are entitled to its contents? When buying a physical game disk, you are not agreeing to any sort of EULA, you only agree to the EULA once you begin installation, so theoretically, if you could somehow hack the installer, you could install it yourself without ever having to agree to the EULA, thus avoiding any legal problems. I wouldn't feel bad about it since I did after all pay for THE CONTENTS OF THE DISK, not necessarily the game itself.

Actually, you didn't pay for the contents of the disk. You payed for the game as it was advertised. This doesn't entitle you to dlc, whether it's on the disk or not. If you don't want to buy dlc that's already on the disk, then don't buy games that put dlc on the disk. As it is, you agreed to buy a game, as is, you didn't buy the contents of the disk.

and any argument you would bring to bear about how you should own everything on the disk is rendered ineffective by the fact that you bought the game. If you bought the product, then you are agreeing that it is worth whatever they sell it to you for. If you then use any method to gain content that was not a part of said product(I.E. Changing the code so that you can get content ur not supposed to have) that's stealing. Like I said, if you can't get that content any other way, the it's not wrong, but it's still stealing.

no, when you purchase a game from a retailer, you are paying for everything in the box, and thus all the content on the CD in the box. All the content that is in the box is part of the product, because that's what you buy.

 

[zehydra]

Your metaphor is incorrect. What you have is you bought a garage full of boxes with one being locked and requiring you to buy an additional key to open it. The company didn't tell you about the box but its clear that the box was filed away and hidden so you can't access it without that key. Now you can buy the key or take a sledgehammer to the box to open it. Clearly breaking open the box is wrong since its forceful entry into something that you were not given but can break into easily. That's a more apt metaphor.

Despite what people may think buying a game does not immediately make the developer your ***** and entitle you to use the disk however you want. It entitles you to a copy of the game but the owner of the game still controls copyright and decides how the thing will be distributed. If the developer specifically locked you out of some of the content then they have to right to lock you out. Yes digital information rights are a complex pile of knots but its fairly clear that even though something is there the user is locked out.

On a side note, just because nobody knows you did something wrong does not make it right. Also, this is why developers are so antagonistic to customers. They include additional content on the disk so that when you buy what is essentially DLC you don't spend 3 hours waiting for it to download and the customers immediately manipulate the disk to get access to it. They try one thing to amke things more convenient and gamers take advantage of it. I understand why they treat us like dicks and have invasive DLC, because we are dicks.

"Now you can buy the key or take a sledgehammer to the box to open it. Clearly breaking open the box is wrong since its forceful entry into something that you were not given but can break into easily. That's a more apt metaphor. "

Except that's in incorrect metaphor, since changing an ".ini" file is hardly taking a sledgehammer, and it IS in fact HIS ".ini" file anyway. He WAS GIVEN all the files, since a game is not merely an executable file, but an exectuable file AND all the files it interacts with, including graphics and sound, and ".ini's". EA decided to distribute the content on to your computer, and cannot hold on to ownership of physical files once you have exchanged the money for the game and it's on your computer.

I really wish I could see the EULA to this game, so I could be more precise in exactly what EA thinks it can do with your computer.

You are correct, with this
"On a side note, just because nobody knows you did something wrong does not make it right. ".

Modifying the files that are part of the content is changing or altering the game. I don' care what you say its more like using a sledgehammer then like using a key you have. EA gave him a copy of the files, he did not give him the right to modify or alter the files without their permission. That is part of the licensing agreement for any piece of software. Modifying software without the knowledge of the person who owns the copyright of it is illegal. That's been true for longer then EULAs have existed. In the end he broke a licensing agreement with EA in some form. You can arguing that the agreement sucks or is unjust but you can't argue that it does not exist.

"Modifying software without the knowledge of the person who owns the copyright of it is illegal."

this is untrue. Modifying software and then redistributing is illegal.

 

[christmasbats]

I have long seen EA as hateful for almost never putting their games on offer. So either no it's not stealing or yes it is and good for you for getting back at them.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Oh EA, you crafty, self centered, limited install use, Steam knocking off bastards you.

You make my insides purge.

 

[DaMan1500]

If you couldn't get it legitimatly, then I don't see a problem.

 

[RevRaptor]

It's technically not illegal although they want you to think it is. the legalities of licence agreements are dubious at best. The enforceability of EULA's is currently under much debate and scrutiny. In my country they don't count as a legal contract and no court would try the case.

 

[masher]

I see it like you've broken into a house. Your house. You broke into your own house.

So not, -really-, seeing as it is technically... your's..?

Something like that.

 

[Moromillas]

No it's not, it's modifying your own property.

 

[rvbnut]

Personally, no. If it's on the disk and they aren't providing you with a way to get to it then you should be able to get it yourself.

Well technically it is stealing because the EA want you to pay for it before you play it but it is stupid on their part for including the content with the main game first. So I'm at an impass.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

They certainly would, but arguably since you already own the file and just unlocked it yourself, it does actually fall in the lines of debatable.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Technically, yes, it's theft.

However, that's not how I would view it. You bought the code needed to run the game, ethically you should be able to do anything you like to your copy of said code.

But, if you signed a contract saying that you wouldn't do something like that, then you're breaking that contract, which is where I see the ethical dubiousness of your situation.

It is technically theft, sure, but the problem goes beyond that. I'm willing to bet that digging through the EULA you agree to before installing the game, you'd find that one of the many rights you do not have is the right to alter or attempt to reverse engineer what was provided.

Of course, I would add that I am, myself, guilty of a similar crime as I have more than once performed more extensive edits of pieces of software, often in an attempt to resolve some problem or another. In many of these case, my action was forbidden by the EULA and yet I did it without feeling even slightly guilty.

Honestly, my take on this is simply this: if you rely on a setting in an ini file to lock away content, and then had the audacity to put this content on the disc, I wouldn't feel even remotely bad about making the edit to access said content. I'm perfectly willing to pay for things of course, but when you try to sell me something on the disc after I've already purchased said disc, then I tend to get a little testy. Sure, I'm annoyed when I'm required to download dlc before I can play a game in full, but less so than when someone is effectively trying to charge me twice.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Your metaphor is incorrect. What you have is you bought a garage full of boxes with one being locked and requiring you to buy an additional key to open it. The company didn't tell you about the box but its clear that the box was filed away and hidden so you can't access it without that key. Now you can buy the key or take a sledgehammer to the box to open it. Clearly breaking open the box is wrong since its forceful entry into something that you were not given but can break into easily. That's a more apt metaphor.

Despite what people may think buying a game does not immediately make the developer your ***** and entitle you to use the disk however you want. It entitles you to a copy of the game but the owner of the game still controls copyright and decides how the thing will be distributed. If the developer specifically locked you out of some of the content then they have to right to lock you out. Yes digital information rights are a complex pile of knots but its fairly clear that even though something is there the user is locked out.

On a side note, just because nobody knows you did something wrong does not make it right. Also, this is why developers are so antagonistic to customers. They include additional content on the disk so that when you buy what is essentially DLC you don't spend 3 hours waiting for it to download and the customers immediately manipulate the disk to get access to it. They try one thing to amke things more convenient and gamers take advantage of it. I understand why they treat us like dicks and have invasive DLC, because we are dicks.

"Now you can buy the key or take a sledgehammer to the box to open it. Clearly breaking open the box is wrong since its forceful entry into something that you were not given but can break into easily. That's a more apt metaphor. "

Except that's in incorrect metaphor, since changing an ".ini" file is hardly taking a sledgehammer, and it IS in fact HIS ".ini" file anyway. He WAS GIVEN all the files, since a game is not merely an executable file, but an exectuable file AND all the files it interacts with, including graphics and sound, and ".ini's". EA decided to distribute the content on to your computer, and cannot hold on to ownership of physical files once you have exchanged the money for the game and it's on your computer.

I really wish I could see the EULA to this game, so I could be more precise in exactly what EA thinks it can do with your computer.

You are correct, with this
"On a side note, just because nobody knows you did something wrong does not make it right. ".

Modifying the files that are part of the content is changing or altering the game. I don' care what you say its more like using a sledgehammer then like using a key you have. EA gave him a copy of the files, he did not give him the right to modify or alter the files without their permission. That is part of the licensing agreement for any piece of software. Modifying software without the knowledge of the person who owns the copyright of it is illegal. That's been true for longer then EULAs have existed. In the end he broke a licensing agreement with EA in some form. You can arguing that the agreement sucks or is unjust but you can't argue that it does not exist.

"Modifying software without the knowledge of the person who owns the copyright of it is illegal."

this is untrue. Modifying software and then redistributing is illegal.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert here on exact wording so we'd need to see some legalities to solve this argument. Neither of us has access to those documents and this conversation is going no where so we're stuck.

 

[Stalydan]

Legally this is wrong. Ethically, you're right to do so in my books

If you purchase a game second hand then it's not such a bad way for a publisher to get some money they lose out on quite a lot. But when it locks out something that is on the disc itself, that's wrong. If a game offers some kind of DLC that you can get if you buy the game new then that okay for me. But if a publisher is pretty much holding online and other game features for ransom on the disc unless you buy the game new or purchase a pass online, that's wrong.

But for God's sake, you bought the game via digital distribution. You can't buy them second-hand! That's all sorts of wrong ><

 

[thahat]

I hate to play the devils advocate here. But all of those saying no are wrong. Legally when you are buying a new game, you are buying only a license to use that software, not the actual software itself. If you unlock the content without paying EA you are stealing. There are no grey areas, no if or buts. It is stealing fullstop.

On the subject of DLC on the disc/DLC in new updates. I would like to point out that in the case of multi-player games this is a necessity, else you'll end up splitting your fanbase into "those who can afford DLC" And "those who can't" with little to no interaction between the two. For single player only games, yeah, the practise is completely retarded and should be stopped as it only causes incidents like the OP. Putting DLC on the discs of single player games is like giving a small child a loaded gun without a safety catch. Things are going to get ugly quickly.

Yeah the system sucks, I know that. But when we're talking about tiny little things like character outfits and maybe a new map or two. It really does seem too much like spoilt kids crying that mommy (i.e. the games companies) won't give them new toys for free.

problem is that you actually buy 2 things. the physical container. e.g. the disc. and also a 'you can play this!' note, pretymuch. the gray area stems from the point of you ALSO own the disc. the fact that it has bits and bytes on it that 'magically' tell your pc to do stuff is a nice bonus. that this 'thing' your pc does looks verry muchly so like a game, and that its owner e.g. the 'i' in the story changed some of the little bits and suddly it did something extra is not something illigal. were the owner to NOT have a disc, and downloaded a game, with a note of 'you can only play this bit' THEN it would ahve been different. well. here in the netherlands anyway. but then again, you can legally download games here anyway. just not upload em XD

Er.. No.
Like I said before, you are not buying the software itself. You are buying a software license. To buy the software itself would probably set you back millions.
This is a bit of a misconception amongst consumers. When you purchase any software off the shelf. Be it a game or application package. You are buying a license to use that software, not the software. Sure you own the disc and packaging. But you don't own what's on the disc.

For more on software licenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

yes yes that part i was in agreence with, please do re-read what i said, the only part i disgreed uppon is that you ALSO BUY THE PHYSICAL DISC. and thats what makes the gray area, where law is concerned.

 

[LordFisheh]

Well in theory, the service they're providing us the unlocking of the content. By unlocking the content yourself, you're not stealing the service, as you aren't using it - you're replacing it with your own service. Kind of like buying a steak but growing your own vegetables.

Edit - More seriously, yeah, it probably is theft. But not a theft that I'd personally lose any sleep over.

 

[Domehammer]

Technically you stole it but since you already had files it's you modified a file in the game. Though if you had bought it on a disk it wouldn't be stealing as disk is physical object that contains files. Though EA wasn't smart to ship game with files just locked out.