Quick question, is this stealing?

[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.

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?

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.

 

[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. ".

 

[Weaver]

It's even worse in terms of Alice because you have to mess with the ini files just to make the game fucking playable.

 

[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.

 

[badgersprite]

I'm not sure this falls under stealing so much as something more like copyright, a tort or possibly breach of contract, as in the license agreement you have in owning the game. You're using something in your possession that you were not given permission to use by the copyright holder. It's not necessarily theft, but that doesn't mean it isn't illegal for other reasons.

 

[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.

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.

 

[UberNoodle]

I sigh every time somebody starts arguing the semantics of the terms 'stealing' and 'theft'.

FFS, get over it. This is not the first time in the English language in which colloquial English and some 'technical' English offer different definitions for the same word.

If you people care so much about unifying the legal, scientific and technical jargon with common English, then be prepared to argue endlessly about such thrilling topics like, 'it's not really a fruit', or 'a prawn is not a shrimp', 'the word 'theory' doesn't mean that' and so on.

Common English: theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, especially when you should have paid some cost to get it legitimately.

Simple.

The reason the media companies use THIS common definition for theft is because we are not lawyers, and probably the definition existed long BEFORE there were any lawyers.

 

[AngelicSven]

Oh wow, this thing blew up. :S

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Nope, not stealing. I'm surprised because I almost always go with yes on these types of threads. It would be like if you went and bought a can of soup and picked out all the carrots, dried them, and then put them in another dish. You didn't steal the carrots. The carrots were in the can, even though the creators of the soup didn't intend you to eat the carrots by themselves. They wanted you to eat their soup.

To extend on this analogy: To me it's as if you bought that can of soup, opened it up, and found another sealed compartment in the bottom of the can. You took some random tool, cracked open the compartment and found the carrots inside, which you then proceeded to mix into the soup. Then the company that manufactured the soup complained that you were you were supposed to buy a special can opener from them in order to have carrots in your soup, even though you bought the whole can and found a way to get to the carrots using your own devices.

Basically, all you did was access game assets that were included on the disk that you legally purchased. This is EA's fault for not using true DLC and effectively handing you content that they wanted you to pay for. Is it technically illegal? Maybe. Do I have any moral qualms about what you did? Nope, not at all.

To extend it even painfully further: When gamers hacked into the code of GTA San Andreas and found an unused sex minigame, were any consumers tried for theft? Maybe Rockstar was going to charge for that section of the game later. Nope. The ESRB found it to be previously undisclosed game content and rerated the game. Rockstar pulled it from store shelves in order to remove the offensive code. Then they got hit with a class action lawsuit over the matter, and owners of the game with the alleged code were awarded $35.

So really, EA owes us money. (I'm kidding. I never collected on the GTA lawsuit because I was disgusted with how Rockstar was treated.)

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd say no. I believe that the purchase of the game gives you exclusive rights of the use license. You aren't transferring it, selling it, modifying it (yes, I'm aware of what those of you who disagree will say), or reverse engineering it. You are simply gaining access to what you already purchased.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Yes its still theft as thats the case with a lot of launch date DLC. Especially things meant to be unlocked by owning preorders or unique editions.

 

[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.

 

[yusukethehedgehog]

Legally, yes, but don't worry about it, I don't think too many people would consider that morally wrong, and you'll never get in trouble for it.

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.

I like how you assume that you're better than everyone else by classifying people as "dumb, panicky animals."

He didn't say other humans, he said humans, as in all of them including himself.

OT: No, it's not stealing for one reason: you bought the game new and, according to EA, you should have right to use the dlc if you bought the game new. If anything it'd be failure on EA's part for not fulfilling a contractual agreement. (This, however, could be a double-edged sword, as EA might be able to twist this about for future rulings to argue EULAs as legally binding).

For an accurate analogy, It would be like if you bought a house, and in the contract it said you would also receive a key to access the garage, but the realtor did not give you the key upon completion of the transaction, so you use another key to get in (Holy run-on sentence Batman!).

 

[cornmancer]

Technically yes, but fuck project ten dollar.

 

[Jnat]

Well, if you didn't pay for it you kinda stole it, I'm not judging though.

 

[mikev7.0]

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

Wow you list wikipedia as if it's an actual source?? For y'know, legal stuff?

Er.. No.

Also you completely discount that the poster is from the netherlands where they can download at will just not upload, legally, so they are right.

As for where I am from I was seriously curious since I have always believed that you own what you buy and that possesion is an important part of the law, how else would it be legal for users to create all those mods and essentially use the software as parts? So anyway, I asked my lawyer who said not to worry about it because it would never, in his opinion, go to court. He also said that, again at least where we're from, he doesn't believe it is illegal.

So actually, miss "Oh how I hate to play devil's advocate *sob*" it really DOES matter where you are from. Denying that is like saying that the laws are not different from place to place and that would be just not true.

So from my opinion, it's not illegal, it is a damn nice move though so enjoy! This is why I am not a computer gamer. Between DRM and the cost of re-upping every couple years? No.

 

[Snotnarok]

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.

I like my idea better, I own the game but I use a version that doesn't use the DRM that slows my machine down and monitor my hardware. I'm doing nothing wrong, only gripe is since it came with the video card it's just a paper sleeve with the disc and serial number, no box or manual. Call me mental but I like having the game on the shelf.

 

[DracoSuave]

I like the 'It's on the disk!' people cause that's how you get stuff off of Steam is on the disk, right?

 

[Canid117]

Legally speaking yes but honestly I dont care. EA shouldn't be pulling this shit anyway.

 

[Choppaduel]

LOL fail security.

no. Its exploiting a weak security system and altering some data. not stealing.