Quick question, is this stealing?

[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.

 

[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.