Does opening up a PC game box and copying down the cd key constitute theft?

[Shudder]

Though not a physical part of it, getting online is part of the product, so since you're taking it and another person couldn't get online from it, you are stealing. Simple as that.

You're getting a service from the company that you didn't pay for. It's stealing. I don't know why it'd even be a question.

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<< If you buy a book and then photocopy it and return it what have you done? Stolen information. This is what his friend did - steal information. >>



I am sorry, you are ignorant and you are wrong. What you have done under this hypothetical situation is you have infringed on copyright. Copyright infringement is different from theft. In this hypothetical situation, there is no theft.

Since you do not understand the difference between the two, you are not qualified to give advice on this matter. I suggest that you educate yourself first. >>

Geeze man don't be so antagonistic. Further to the guy who accused you of the BS OJ Simpson babble I agree. I don't give a damn if this is "stealing or not" based upon the law and I also do not care, nor do most of us, to hear about your moral relativism. If you can sit there and tell me you see nothing wrong with copying the serial code of a game - a serial code that is intended to be part only of a purchased product - then you really have some issues.

 

[StageLeft]

<< It would probably help if you clarified what kind of answer you are looking for.

Most people have given religious (moral) answers. I have given a legal answer.

If you are looking for a religious (moral) answer, you should probably tell us which religion your friend believes in, so that the answers can be more accurate. >>

True...

 

[bigalt]

so is stealing someone's adultcheck password also wrong?

 

[mithrandir2001]

If Target or Blizzard took this friend to court, the friend would lose. Voodoo can say all he wants about the "myth" of intellectual property, but what court is going to let somebody off for this action?

There is no grey area. If the point of jotting down the serial number is to enable some feature that is not available without purchasing the software (i.e. the battle.net access), then that's a textbook example of stealing. The defense of cost-free digital duplication isn't even valid because the serial number is unique and can only be used once...by its very uniqueness, it has become "tangible" property.

 

[Mursilis]

<< Intellectual works are protected by copyright law, trademark law or patent law. They are not protected by property law, they are not property, they cannot be stolen, and those who use intellectual works in a way that violates applicable laws are not thieves. >>



That's not entirely correct. For example, see the Code of Virginia § 18.2-152.2:

"Property" shall include:

1. Real property;

2. Computers and computer networks;

3. Financial instruments, computer data, computer programs, computer software and all other personal property regardless of whether they are:

a. Tangible or intangible;

b. In a format readable by humans or by a computer;

c. In transit between computers or within a computer network or between any devices which comprise a computer; or

d. Located on any paper or in any device on which it is stored by a computer or by a human; and

4. Computer services.


This is all taken from Chapter 5, Crimes against PROPERTY. Thus, such intangible items as computer programs are (at least legally) property in some states.



<< That would be a good question to ask of a lawyer. It is by no means clear cut. >>



Seems pretty clear cut to me. And yes, I'm a lawyer.



<< Certainly, your friend removed no physical property from the store, so he is most certainly not guilty of anything under property law. Therefore he is most certainly not a thief. >>



One need not remove anything physical from a store in order to be charged for a crime against property, at least in my state. See:
§ 18.2-152.6. Theft of computer services.

Any person who willfully uses a computer or computer network, with intent to obtain computer services without authority, shall be guilty of the crime of theft of computer services, which shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Again, this can all be found under Chapter 5, Crimes against Property.

 

[Mookow]

Using it does, because the person who bought it wouldnt be able to use their game fully

 

[voodooguy]

<< If Target or Blizzard took this friend to court, the friend would lose. Voodoo can say all he wants about the "myth" of intellectual property, but what court is going to let somebody off for this action? >>



I did not say that the guy was definitely in the right.

What I did say is that he did not commit theft.

He can at most be charged with copyright infringement.

And nobody would bother to file suit against him, because the cost of filing suit and making a single court appearance would cost far more than the price of the game upon the copyright of which the guy is allegedly infringing.

As for the point about stealing computer services: There is no theft of service here. Somebody is simply jotting down a number. What he later does or does not do with that number is beyond the scope of this case.

I still cast doubt upon the question of whether a string of numbers can be copyrighted. Numbers are naturally occuring entities, and one cannot copyright them.

 

[Sketcher]

Does it hurt when you bang your head against a brick wall?..

Legal/not Legal, Moral, not Moral, in the morning, in the afternoon. When the planets align...

So there's a point of legal ambiguity (however dull). There's the point of moral impunity (always debatable by anyone who wants to argue). Shut the CAKE HOLE w/the Judge Wapner BS already.

If Little Johnny opens the protective seal of a retail product that is owned by someone other than himself - whether to copy a key, browse the manual or just plain smell the unique scent of untouched software packaging - he's just plain in the wrong (i know, i used a moral stint there). Theft, Piracy, Vandelism, Infringment - those are just base issues. You're ignorant if you believe the cost of a lawsuite is going to prevent a person from being brought up on charges. With something that is evidential in process, it's not a question of whether it was done, as in OJ's circus - but to what end it was done.

There's reason why software packaging has protective tags and it's the same reason why you typically cannot return an opened package of software. The licensing agreement has been accessed and or abused.

Not Moral wrong, Not Legal wrong... Insert foot in the ass wrong!! But the legal and moral ethics will come in to play. Oh yes, they will play.

<< Same case scenario, what if a serial number or cd key was out in the open? What if I was to copy my friend's legit cd key? Would I be stealing from him? What about those Microsoft OS stickers on the side of OEM computers with the cd key for the installation of software? >>

Read the EULA MFGR requirements you're not 8 years old anymore. Are you? Well, most 8 year olds can read a EULA. Have someone explain it to you. I think there's something in there about banging your head against a brick wall. Are you getting the answer you're looking for yet? Why don't you just go down to your local store and find out what the actual process is - proudly reenact your moment of mischief and teach us all what happens when you do the very thing you're clueless about. Solve all this BS once and for all. Let's see how much arguing of legal/moral get's you out of handcuffs

eh, what's that? it does hurt when you bang your head against a brick wall? Well there ya go.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< And nobody would bother to file suit against him, because the cost of filing suit and making a single court appearance would cost far more than the price of the game upon the copyright of which the guy is allegedly infringing. >>


That's only if the company acts rationally and that may not be in their best interests. If people knew that a company would sue individuals for petty crimes, even if the cost of prosecution exceeded the amount of the lost sale, then people would think twice about stealing. Why do you think the IRS will spend $10,000 to prosecute someone who owes $100 in taxes? Because it consequentially encourages broader compliance with tax laws.


<< As for the point about stealing computer services: There is no theft of service here. Somebody is simply jotting down a number. What he later does or does not do with that number is beyond the scope of this case.

I still cast doubt upon the question of whether a string of numbers can be copyrighted. Numbers are naturally occuring entities, and one cannot copyright them. >>


Cause. What is the value of a "string of numbers" in itself? Nothing really. So why would this individual make the effort to acquire a serial number from inside a shrinkwrapped package, if it's just a "string of numbers"? Because you know it is more than that. Those numbers represent property. The individual wanted the property that those numbers represent. Is there any other purpose to those numbers in this context? No. He copied those numbers down because he didn't want to pay for them and what those numbers activate.