[dkokelley]

Yes this rubs me the wrong way. I think it's analogous to a retail store (say, an Apple store) leaving their front door unlocked overnight. It's possible to go in and take merchandise. After all, it's not your fault they left their front door open. You could even argue that Apple's business practices are morally questionable, so they deserve to be taken advantage of . (I'm not trying to make any statement about Apple. It's for the analogy.)

You could argue that the situation is different with virtual goods, since they have an incredibly low marginal cost, but I think that the situations are morally analogous. The games aren't supposed to be free.

[glesica]

Not really. It's more like Apple issuing you a coupon for a free iPod Nano, but when you go to checkout with the iPod Nano and a Macbook in your cart, the cashier tells you they're both free.

It may still be unethical, my point is just that there are shades of gray here.

[dkokelley]

I understand your point, but I disagree. There is a marked difference between being told by a cashier that the MacBook is also free, and exploiting bad coupon code mechanics for free products. Primarily, the coupon code users knew that the code was broken (the door was unlocked) and proceded to abuse it.

From my understanding, the coupon recipients knew that the coupon was supposed to only be for a single $20 discount. The only shade of grey in this case (as far as I am aware) is that there may be a user who used the code and unwittingly received a discount applied to multiple products. I believe that the majority of people in this case knew that it was unethical (and possibly illegal) but rationalized it by saying that EA deserved it.

[sespindola]

Except that, in that case, Apple will loose a lot of money from the free hardware. In this case, the only real loss for EA is the bandwidth. Since it would be safe to asume that the downloaders wouldn't have bought a lot of games at the current prices.

[dkokelley]

Sure, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. It's hard to quantify, but there is some set of those downloaders who at some point in the future would probably have bought one of the EA titles they received, so there is some actual lost revenue. I suppose that's their lesson for pushing bad code into production.

But it shouldn't matter. Real loss isn't necessary for it to be a unethical (or worse, a crime).

[milfot]

Is it actually true that real loss isn't necessary to be unethical? You couldn't possibly provide an example? I am having trouble imagining such a situation.

(I would argue in terms of importance, ethics > crime)

[stonemetal]

Is it actually true that real loss isn't necessary to be unethical?

Plagiarize a paper in college, you have caused no real loss but still been unethical. Say you knew the topic very well and could have done the work yourself, you just plagiarized because you were lazy to get around the whole you harmed yourself argument.

[milfot]

Yeah, that is a good point. I had this idea that it most ethical questions are to do with other people.

Like stonemetal alluded to, in a pretty esoteric sense you are harming yourself by bringing yourself into disrepute.. but that is just quibbling. Also I guess the 'scientific' method employed in marking papers is as a proof which you have not given. Though you may have done the groundwork it does not automatically follow that you are able to reliably produce the required results. You may also then be bringing the school into disrepute... but, probably not the central issue here.

I don't agree that EA's reward is diminished UNLESS people who would have otherwise bought these games did not (which I would then absolutely regard as stealing) and ASIDE from the very real argument about server time (which I would argue is a separate instance of theft).

I don't think the social contract argument holds much beyond the idea of patronage ie. I have a duty to support the content producer, but no such duty to allow him to profit. That is arbitrage, I may find it worth my while to allow it, but I have no duty to support it. In abstract Kant-ian terms (thanks for the link, jogged my memory of all those philosophy subjects I studied way back when) if all the world rejected arbitrage people would only make things that were really valued (in real terms, some over-production allows for innovation of course.. things are never so simple).

In fact, in the OP, he mentioned that on some boards people were justifying their actions by saying that they were taking back some of the money EA had taken from them over the years. This could be read as taking back the profits, or the arbitrage, which they no longer felt were justified given EA's continued mistreatment of their custom. (or, of course could be read as a petty way to make themselves feel ok about stealing).

[dkokelley]

stonemetal's point about plagiarization is excellent. I had in mind something along the lines of media piracy, except in EA's case there is an actual cost (since their bandwidth provided the content, and their servers will have to support it when they go online). I think the majority of people accept the fact that piracy is ethically wrong, even if there is no cost to the producer. When you pirate, you are enjoying content that someone else produced with their finances, time, and talents. The social contract is that in return for that enjoyment, you support the content producer by purchasing a licensed copy so they can be rewarded for their efforts. When you pirate, you deprive the producer of that reward.

The same deprivation occurs here. EA's reward for publishing these games is reduced or removed because people acquired them when the "door was unlocked".

I do not know enough about formal ethics to express my point here, but I would look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative under Perfect Duty to show how the concept of piracy doesn't hold up under the Categorical Imperative.

[mhaymo]

The exploiter's gain is greater than EA's loss, especially when you consider that EA desperately wants people to use Origin. That doesn't make it ethical, but I won't shed any tears over it.

[eumenides1]

I think the analogy is wrong. EA didn't lose any physical copies.

I think a better analogy would be Chapters/Barnes & Noble (A Book Store) had accidentally put in free to use high quality photocopiers inside their store. The photocopiers were intended to be free to use, but not intended to be used on the books in the store.

Your argument isn't morally analogous because theft implies EA were deprived of something (EA still can sell and play their games), when the issue at hand is the EA botched up controlling access to their product. In your argument, Apple can't sell the stolen merchandise any more.

The more important part for EA would not to be to "punish" or claw back copies. That genie is out of the jar. They should just chalk it up to marketing and move on (fix the technical issue).

[chrisbennet]

"Your argument isn't morally analogous because theft implies EA were deprived of something (EA still can sell and play their games), when the issue at hand is the EA botched up controlling access to their product. In your argument, Apple can't sell the stolen merchandise any more."

This whole "if you still have the physical object, you weren't robbed" is a rationilization. If your school decides not to give you a diploma you still have whatever you learned - but now the value of your education in the marketplace has been reduced.

Repeat after me: "Taking something that isn't yours without permission is stealing."

[ConceptJunkie]

But... the fact that the servers honored the code being used multiple times _is_ permission. You can't assume that this wasn't EA's intent, (although it's almost certain it wasn't). Ultimately, the onus is on EA to make their system work right.

I'm not arguing that people who abused the code weren't doing something wrong, but it is not cut-and-dried. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that they were "stealing".

I think a better analogy is when a business accidentally advertises a product at the wrong price. They are required by law to honor the advertisement even if it was a mistake. This is much closer to the situation with EA than the idea that they "left their front door unlocked", etc. Regardless of other circumstances, the transaction was legal, and I think the law might well require EA to honor it... but I don't know the details.

Another analogy would be issuing a coupon and forgetting to include "limit 1 per customer", or even having a salesperson giving out free product, who misunderstands and doesn't limit the product to one per customer.

Would customers in those cases be considered "stealing" if they took advantaqe of these situations? I don't see how that can be argued. Could they be accused of being greedy? Definitely, but as much as people might wish otherwise, being greedy isn't against the law.

FWIW, I didn't use this code, and wouldn't have exploited it even if I had. I have too much great stuff already from GOG, Steam and Humble Bundle, etc... that I don't have time to play it all. I have no need nor interest in exploiting anyone in this way.

[dkokelley]

But... the fact that the servers honored the code being used multiple times _is_ permission.

I'm not sure. It's my understanding that the intent (and legal TOS) of the code was "limit 1 per customer. Non-transferrable." The fact that the server allowed it doesn't change the fact that the intent was for it to be used once.

Imagine a bowl of candy out during Halloween. There is a sign that says "Take only one". The fact that this house failed to implement a means of controlling how many people take doesn't make it OK to take two handfuls.

The important distinction in this case is what the legal language of acceptable use was, and not what was possible through the (broken) server. If you fail to print "limit one per customer" on your coupons, that's a lesson learned. If you DO print "limit one per customer" but fail to validate that at the self-checkout lane, and people abuse it, that's fraud.

*This all predicates on whether the actual language stipulates that the code really is only good for a single, non-transferrable use.