Quick question, is this stealing?

[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.

 

[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.