Quick question, is this stealing?

[TheMann]

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.

Off topic: Is Madness Returns any good on a PC? I've been wanting to get it but heard the gameplay is a little shaky on the mouse and keyboard.

 

[Reallink]

This gets into some pretty grey, fuzzy legal matters here . . .

Although it was originally avaialable on the disk, it was kept from you during install. Simply because you can modify an .ini file to unlock it doesn't make it right. You agreed to the EULA when installing, which means that you own the right to use the product, not change it. You don't "own" the product.

Technically, this falls into the same categories that a lot of modding does - we're not really supposed to be doing this stuff, but as long as we're not trying to turn a dollar, and are helping to support and promote the game, the devs don't really care. Legal could still step into the community and serve everyone a nice, fat "cease and desist," but they tend to realize the benefits of letting the mod communities continue their work as long as they're not up to any shenannigans - the possibility still exists, though.

What I'm getting at is that although it's easy for you to "mod" your game to unlock said content, and as long as you're not doing anything illegal, I don't personally see anything wrong with it (as this is from a modder's standpoint) . . . although what you're doing is still technically, by the EULA, wrong.

The difference here though is that while the person in question is not profiting, they are accessing paid content without paying. So while your point about modding is a fair one, this is just backdoor entry to paid content.

My problem with this situation is what people would do if the DLC was then released on Steam. I would guess most players who obtained the DLC through the .ini file would fall in two categories:

1. I already have it, why should I pay for this?
2. It wasn't that good, they don't deserve my money.

Which is the type of approach that a lot of people (at least that I know) have to downloading music. These are additional products that should be paid for. Just because they were already on the disc (or downloaded) doesn't change much to me.

 

[PatSilverFox]

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.

Yeah.
Just modding.
You are smart so you don't have to pay, unlike the people who don't realize what is actually happening with project $10.

 

[templargunman]

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."

 

[FrostyChick]

Somebody actually gets it. How nice. RFI approves +12. I may not agree with the practice of including DLC on the disc but I respect the letter of the law. Hell, I make games for a living and I think putting DLC on the disc is a terrible idea but I'm not going to turn around and steal because I disagree with somebody's manufacturing and marketing strategies.

Besides, let's be honest for a moment here: would people rather have draconian DRM or Project Ten Dollar's DLC-on-disc? It's going to be one or the other in the end and it's not that hard to tell which is the lesser of two evils.

Naturally, this will queue the "but gamers are honorable people and don't need to be bound by DRM or DLC-on-disc" argument but that's a spectacular fail of a lie. Stardock made the effort to release DRM-free games and what did they end up with? An 8-to-1 ratio of pirated to legitimate titles activated on their servers. Very honorable, my fellow gamers. So very, very honorable.

As least someone else out there knows their stuff.

It's almost saddening for a perspective games designer like myself. All these thinly guised cries of "give me stuff for free". It's sickening, and yet they wonder why companies smack them in the face with DRM.

If I could, I would do my best to remove this day-1-DLC, DLC-on-disc for single-player games and DRM nonsense. But given the Stardock example, I would rather be able to put food in my mouth than rely on the general gaming public.

I guess it's just the gaming industry that has this problem. Amazon MP3 is doing pretty good, I buy most of my music from there. And it proves that DRM free is possible, if only its success could be moved over to the gaming industry too.

 

[blankedboy]

I'd say you're okay. If it's in the disk/data files, then technically, it's yours to edit and mess with. So long as you don't distribute it, you'll be okay in my books.

I reckon this will fit in. If you want you can check out their EULA and see if it speaks against it, otherwise there's really nothing they can legally do about it. They gave you the files, the files are now yours. You effectively signed that contract by agreeing to the EULA :|

 

[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.