Quick question, is this stealing?

[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.

 

[JPArbiter]

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.

the End User License Agreement in the instruction manual takes care of that. by popping the disc in the X Box (or console of your choice) you are legally agreeing to not "sell the software to the commies" so to speak.

The legality of the EULA is not universal.
It is not, in any way or form, legally binding where I am from.

Besides, EA should face harsh penalties for destroying a market they do not like.
I very much doubt that car or housing manufacturers would ever be allowed to pull shit like that.

Cars purchases and home construction though are the purchase of tangible assets, the prevailing theory with software, particularly software that can be continuously patched through the internet, is that you are not purchasing anything real, but the rather the right to use a piece of software. the Disc that anti EULA crowds cling to as the physical medium is a delivery system, nothing more.

not saying it is right, just saying it is the theory.

 

[AngelicSven]

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?

Did I say it came with the first game? Nope, don't believe I did.

It's fairly simple, bought the game (Just the game), couldn't find the dlc for it on Steam, which I would have bought. Went into the file and changed it to have the DLC. However, it is Project Ten Dollar stuff, cause Alice 1 is in the main menu after I did it. Of course I can't play it cause it's not actually there.

Though, like I said, it's fairly irrelevant because did all this months ago. Oh, it's actually reversible, set it back to FALSE and it's the normal game again. So even if it is minor theft, I'll just switch it back.

 

[Sikratua]

Allow me to quote the Theft Act 1968 from English law. Section 1(1) states "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be construed accordingly."

All of the elements of the offense need to be present at the same time for the offense to be complete, but in this case there is no intent to permanently deprive under the ordinary meaning of the words (as we are required to look at first from R v Lloyd). Also it does not fall under the meaning of disposal for s.6(1), neither is it akin to a dishonest borrowing under s.6(2) so he is not guilty of theft.

Why is this topic so difficult for people to get? Piracy is not theft. Yes, it's illegal, but it's not theft!

So, what you're saying is that the OP is guilty of permanently depriving EA of 10 bucks. How is that not theft, again?

Allow me to quote from American law, because, since the OP is an American, it actually applies. Even better, since the OP is from California, I can quote direct California law on the subject. While I will admit that California Penal Code § 484 isn't as succinct as yours, It certainly gets the job done.

Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

The key phrases are "Fraudlulently appropriate property" (which he did) and "defraud any other person of money." (Which, again, he did.) So, given the ACTUAL law on the subject, how is this not theft? California law, which is the one that actually matters, doesn't make any distinction for the actual owner not being allowed to use it any longer.

Here. Check it for yourself.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

But, because I like the ironic echo trope, "Why is this topic so difficult for people to get?"

Edited: Just because I feel like having a bit of fun with this guy, please, allow me to quote British law. The Theft Act of 1978 states:

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection

The "service" in question is unlocking the material. Shall I invoke the ironic echo again?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Project Ten Dollar needs to fuck off and die. It treats people like criminals and only makes them turn to piracy even more.

Why can't they get this through their heads?

 

[Alexnader]

If you consider piracy stealing then what you've just done is steal the DLC. Just because the data is already on the disc doesn't mean it's yours. You didn't pay for a disc and all its contents, you paid for a license to play the game. You did not pay for the DLC and I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise to quickly look up the basic theory behind the software license agreement you accept every time you install a game.

Also while it is theft you obviously wouldn't get prosecuted.

 

[omega3711]

Yep, that's stealing. What you did would be like playing WoW and then tampering with the files to unlock the expansions that Blizzard has released. Why there would be DLC released on the first day is beyond me but that does not mean anyone is entitled to have it for free.

 

[AngelicSven]

So, what you're saying is that the OP is guilty of permanently depriving EA of 10 bucks. How is that not theft, again?

Allow me to quote from American law, because, since the OP is an American, it actually applies. Even better, since the OP is from California, I can quote direct California law on the subject. While I will admit that California Penal Code § 484 isn't as succinct as yours, It certainly gets the job done.

Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

The key phrases are "Fraudlulently appropriate property" (which he did) and "defraud any other person of money." (Which, again, he did.) So, given the ACTUAL law on the subject, how is this not theft? California law, which is the one that actually matters, doesn't make any distinction for the actual owner not being allowed to use it any longer.

Here. Check it for yourself.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

But, because I like the ironic echo trope, "Why is this topic so difficult for people to get?"

Feloniously? I don't think defrauding 10 bucks would be a felony, maybe a misdemeanor, most likely a slap on the wrist. It's okay though, I just gave it back to EA so it's all fine, quite easy actually. I felt bad.

 

[tavelkyosoba]

I'd say technically yes because it's not within your licensing agreement.

But ethically, project 10-dollar prices content to second hand buyers of games...but you bought yours first hand at retail so you should receive all the benefits thereof.

legality and riteousness don't always play well together.

 

[XT inc]

I'd say no, But I really want the courts to rule for the rights of ownership.

None of this, oh you bought a license to play this game that you bought and can be revoked should we say so.

If its on the disk you went to the store to buy, then it is yours. I draw the line at ripping files off the disk to make content you'd sell to people, but I think it is fair use to get access to every 1 and 0 on that program.