Quick question, is this stealing?

[Arafiro]

It's as much stealing as me editing my player character skin on San Andreas the other day. The file was already there, I just changed it.

And, for the record, I am pursuing a career in games development, so I am considering the development companies at the same time.
Nothing wrong with DLC, but use it correctly and don't take existing content, remove it from the game, and sell it seperately. Actually putting the content on the disc is even more foolish.

 

[Raeil]

Honestly, I don't think anything illegal has been done. Yes, the unlocked data is meant to be payed for, but all you did was modify your own software. Modification of software is protected (even of copywritten works) so long as it is not distributed. As long as this modification stays on your own computer, I don't think EA has any legal action they can take against you, and if they did you would likely win in court.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I'd say no. You got the game legally and you SHOULD have gotten the DLC, but EA was trying to rip you off.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Technically yes, but it's hardly unjustified when EA knowingly made the content unavailable to you. They've got no one to blame but themselves (assuming you would have legally purchased the content had you been given that option). It's my philosophy that it's not piracy if you have no other way of getting that content.

Not to mention, really? It was that easy to unlock that content? I guess EA is about as competent as China trying to copy things...

 

[Elzam]

When I saw the title of this topic, the very first thing that popped into my head was "If you have to ask this question, then yes, it's stealing."

Having read your post, my answer hasn't changed. So, yes, it's stealing. But, more on point, did nobody pay attention to Sony v. Hotz? You don't "purchase software." You purchase the ability to use software. There is a HUGE fucking difference.

theft requires that you must take something from somewhere so it doesn't have it, the whole "piracy is theft" campaign is silly because by
definition it isn't... however still illegal

This logic astounds me. A person sees something that doesn't belong to him/her. That something costs money. The person acquires that item, without paying for it. And, it wasn't a legally obtained gift. How the fuck is that not theft? Seriously, you "Piracy isn't theft" people sound like the guys from Office Space.

Here's a quick checklist.

Was what you acquired legally distributed, free of charge?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

Did you pay for the acquisition in question?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

Was the acquisition in question given to you as a gift by someone who obtained it legally?
If Yes, you're good to stop here. If No, proceed to the next question.

In making the acquisition in question, did the seller of the item in question receive compensation, at some point, for the EXACT item in question?
If Yes, you're fine. If No, you're a fucking thief.

Any questions?

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

 

[Navvan]

If its a file on a disc or came with the download you payed for that is your property. I don't see how it could be considered theft. If you downloaded the extra file or a special "key" to unlock it or something along those lines then that is a different story.

My logic goes a bit like this. To consider it an illegal offense to tamper with something that came with the disc/download would be the same as calling it an illegal offense to pick the lock or break down the door to a room in my newly purchased home unless I paid them to unlock it first.

If it were a separate download or you used some sort of copyrighted program to unlock the content it would be like denying to pay someone for building an addition for my house.

 

[Xaio30]

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.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Le Snippity-

Yeah, it's theft... on EA's part.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's already on the disc I paid for, then I shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[gnfnrf]

It's just as much stealing as other forms of software piracy. Now, I'm not sure any software piracy can fall under the traditional definition of stealing, since none of them deprive a rightful owner of the property, but this is the same as any of those.

The fact that you are accessing software contrary to the licensing agreement that is on a disc you bought, vs. getting it from somewhere else, doesn't change the licensing terms, and that you are violating them.

So if you want to call that activity stealing, this is it.

 

[mastiffchild]

Theft isn't quite the right word but as you don't OWN the right to play all the software on the disc and are circumventing their management rather than pay for the unlockable content you ARE in the wrong and, morally, are joining them on an undesirable low rung of the ethical ladder:two wrongs STILL don't make a right. I suppose it could be some kind of fraud as you're getting at the DLC by a kind of deception even if it's only the software you're fooling.

Personally, I don't agree with piracy, theft, online passes or draconian DLC and DRM from publishers and developers either-fact is, had they made Alice a better game more people would have bought it and there wouldn't be much need for on-the-disc rip off DLC l;ike this anyway-much like the online pass thing that's becoming industry standard way before any of them have thought "hey, lets mke games good enough for people to , you know,, enjpy them enough that they want to keep hold of them and, maybe, even keep playing them!" instead of finding new ways for legit gamers, regardless of their current poverty or wealth pay for the crime of piracy and the "crime" of used sales(which kept me and a lot of other currently large buyers of games with the hobby in the past and without which I'd not be buying new games today as I'd have been off to another, more inclusive and less greedy hobby. I can't believe they trhink that allowing pirates another excuse to say the industry "deserves" it because it's equally greedy and are also cutting off a big number of future game buying people who just happen to be poor/students whatever right now. why alienate them rather than making better product and keeping them in the fold for the future?)-I think it's part of a short sighted and counter productive stance the industry takes every time they feel there's an easy way to squeeze out cash today(if you don't have the cash for new games you STILL haven't the cash for a used game PLUS a pass FFS! All that happens is the game stays on the shelves used and the online community shrinks while no used sales are making fans of the franchise for future new sales). Why are all the moves so seemingly stuck in the here and now with no thought for gamers who might need a little convincing or help to stick around to become the next generation of big game buyers?

As a musician I'm used to folk selling on my CD/recordings on vinyl etc and never think I deserve part of the sell on money. I just think I'm happy another person might be a future fan or buyer of my work and also feel that,maybe,I could have done more or made a better record in the first place to make more people want to keep and more people want to buy the thing in the first place. Piracy, mind, I take a dimmer view of entirely as so many people do use it to get things they would usually or otherwise buy-esp with music these days.

Don'#t lose any sleeep, mind, but I think the way out of piracy and finding a more reasonable industry(look at the outrageous prices for DL games over PSN or XBL where, like Steam, they ought to be cheaper? Why isn't the savings of DD being passed on? With that greedy(same as over used sales and DLC) the industry supplies the pirates with their ammo and we get good gamers turning a blind eye AND paying for everything! If the industry stops this kind of thing(just as bad as what you did) then maybe there's a chance we'd be in the same side against piracy in gaming and not (from their side) blaming ALL gamers for all ills or(on our side) allowing anything because "they" are even greedier. A bit of mutual respect starting with honest passing on of the lower costs of downloadable games by certain parties and NOT crying over used sales would be a start we might get on board with. Or am I naive?

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I'd consider it modding your game. You didn't take anything from anywhere you didn't already own, right? As in, no additional content was illegally transferred to your computer so you really didn't steal anything.

I agree. However others disagree and I'm guessing EA would as well. The law I doubt would be on your side as well.

 

[maninahat]

I bought a Snickers today, but the lady at the counter told me I wasn't allowed to eat any of the peanuts before I payed extra.

See where I'm going?

No, because the nuts are part of what makes a snickers a snickers. A DLC is an added extra. If a store let you buy a game, but then refused to put in a graphics engine or sound, then that would be analogous to a nutless snicker's bar. A better analogy would be buying some groceries, and then expecting to be allowed to take home the metal grocery basket as well, seeing as how it was already in your hand when you bought the goods.

You payed for the goods, not the basket as well. Just because you have it in your hand does not mean you are freely entitled to it.

Ehm, I can not see where your example works better than mine here.

On-disc DLC; Information ON the physical disc that I bought and took out of the store, nobody stopped me from taking the 'extra' information.

Nuts; In the Snickers.

Shoppingbasket nowhere to be seen...

I understand there are 'legislative' concerns here, but these are nothing but ways in which customers are getting screwed over, any and every profit-seeking company will try bullshit-shenanigans like this if they think they can get away with it/don't piss off too many people to put a dent in sales.

Tell me with a straight face that that is not true.

It's not true.

I don't see how you are entitled to something you didn't pay for, just because it is in reach. You specifically bought ONE GAME. The DLC is not a quintessential part of that ONE GAME, it is a seperate product you must purchase if you wish to use it. I'll try another analogy - When I pay for a night in a hotel room, I don't assume that the contents of the mini-bar is mine for free, just because it happens to be within that same room. I only paid for a room, and the location of the minibar is merely a convenience for if/when I want to buy its contents. Likewise, you only paid for a game, and just because the DLC data is there on the disc, doesn't mean it is free for you to take. You aren't being screwed out of anything, and you get exactly what you paid for.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Snip-

It's not an attitude of "give me free stuff", it's an attitude of "I paid for the disc and whatever happens to be on it. If that includes extra stuff, and you're insisting that I pay for it even though I already technically own it, then you don't have the right to act appalled when I unlock it without my money."

DLC is content added to the game from an outside source, I'll gladly pay for it if it looks good.

But if it's already on the disc and is just being blocked by $10-20 and an overall horrible idea, I'm going to try and bypass it, because I've already paid for it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Twilight_guy]

It's illegally modding your game in order to circumvent copyright. You didn't steal anything but you did break the owner's right to control the released material of the game. EA should have put some stronger controls on the thing but non-the-less what you did was illegal.

On a side note, obligatory games are self entitled dicks comment here. Just because a developer makes it does not make you entitled to it. Just because you can get access to it does not mean you are entitled to it. Just because you can do something does not make it right. This is why we have pirates and they are why we have crap like DRM.

 

[maninahat]

Stealing as defined by whom? Laws are made by people. People are dumb, panicky animals. So are so many of the laws they make.

My answer? Don't give a damn about the ethical implications of the situation and enjoy yourself.

Hope you stay so chirpy if I rob your house or steal your computer. After all, you are just another one of those people to me, so I'm fine to do so by your logic.

LOL I have nothing here but an outdated one and a half year old laptop that turns into a microwave if it runs starcraft 2 on anything above low settings that you might get $400 for selling to some computer pawn shop and a bunch of bargain-priced clothes. I live on ramen, lean pockets, and flavored seltzer water.

Feel like robbing me? My physical possessions are next to worthless.

So yeah, I'm just another one of those people, but if you're going to rob someone, at least rob someone who has something worth stealing...

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate the inconvenience. If it really isn't a problem, feel free to smash your meaningless laptop over your knee and prove me wrong.

 

[maninahat]

Actually no you're not stealing, nothing was taken from EA and they have nothing to 'miss'. However I do feel like you're sticking it to them for having poor DLC choices.

I pirated Farcry 2, while I actually own the game, to avoid the stupid fucking DRM they put on the game. So I have it, serial number and all(came with my Video Card ages ago no less), I instead use my copy how backwards is that??

Errr, what DRM? I own Far Cry 2 on steam and have not encountered any such security measure.

Anyway, yes, he did take away from EA. He took a DLC that he should have otherwise paid them for. Whether or not he would have paid the price is irrelevant: he took what was theirs without any formal transfer of ownership.

You mean the DRM they list right on the steam store page? 5 Machine activation limit.
I have the disc and it has the same DRM. It doesn't just count computers it counts ANY hardware changes so when I changed my ram, video card then my motherboard I basically ran out of installs. It constantly monitors your system for changes, so it slows down your system basically.

Huh, hadn't noticed that before. That's an unfortunate inconvenience, though I suppose you could go to the trouble of reactivating the number of installs if you could live with the annoyance.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

 

[zehydra]

No, that's an absurd stretch, and a terrible idea on EA's part. If they have already given you the content, then by no means are you held liable for using that content for recreational purposes (gaming).

 

[zehydra]

It's illegally modding your game in order to circumvent copyright. You didn't steal anything but you did break the owner's right to control the released material of the game. EA should have put some stronger controls on the thing but non-the-less what you did was illegal.

On a side note, obligatory games are self entitled dicks comment here. Just because a developer makes it does not make you entitled to it. Just because you can get access to it does not mean you are entitled to it. Just because you can do something does not make it right. This is why we have pirates and they are why we have crap like DRM.

Suppose a company gave you a box, and it had a lock on it, but was open-able with any regular house key, or car key. The box is yours to keep, but the company says you can access the inside of the box only when you pay them money for a key. But you have 30 keys that will do just fine. The company will never know what you do with the box, since they've already said that the box is now your property.


Do you still feel morally/legally obligated to pay for the useless key?

 

[Daverson]

Arguably, they probably have something in the EULA where you technically agreed not to do this, but if they've included the data, and all you had to do was modify an .ini, like you say...

Well, if someone leaves a £50 note unsupervised on a park bench, then walks off, and some homeless guy walks by and picks it up, that wouldn't really be stealing, would it? Same thing here.