Not sure what the benefit is of turning this into semantics. "Get a hold of" is what is implied here, everyone should understand that. As such, getting hung up on "stealing" is rather pointless.

it is likely that way because it is an argument that often comes up when discussing losses accumulated through piracy. were the argument typically is that not every copy should be accounted for a loss of sale. it does not really apply here because this game will probably sell the same amount as before someone got a hold of the code. And if it does not its likely because of some second order issue arising like not being able to fight cheaters...

I suppose. But, this has very little to do with piracy. The source code wasn't acquired in order to compile bootleg versions of the game, and thus leading to loss of sales.

This is the illegal gain of someone else's intellectual property. "Stealing" is a reasonable word to use in this context.

But the wider point is that "intellectual property" cannot effectively be "stolen", only "unlawfully obtained or reproduced". Nobody is ever deprived of IP or even its legally-created exploitation rights; it's only the market value of such IP that is allegedly affected.

I reckon we need a new word. "Pirating" has sort-of taken that space but it's not really good and it only covers distribution. It should be something that carries a meaning of "swindled", "wiped away", "theoretic-market-value-corrupted".

Freebooting. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Freebooting As coined in hello internet. (If the intent is indeed to re-package and profit)

If value is transferred by force, this is theft.

But there is no way to ascertain if value has actually been transferred. It's just fingers in the wind. EA could sell their games tomorrow and make exactly the same money they would have made before the hack.

Thise entire line of reasoning is reaching, it is rationalization for unethical behavior.

Stop justifying poor behavior. Just stop. Trust me, your cognitive dissonance will reduce, and life will overall get easier.

I doubt life will get easier when I don't question any established power-structure and just do (or pay) what I'm told.

Or rather, somebody's life will probably get easier - just not mine.

Taking advantage, in any way shape or form, of someone else's efforts, against their will, which efforts and work product were not in public but expressly in private, isn't sticking it to the man or fighting the power structure.

It is just taking advantage of someone without their permission. That's all it is. There's nothing revolutionary or awesome about it. It isn't novel. It isn't creative. It isn't rebellious.

It is simply an unethical use of force.

When that someone enjoys disproportionate advantages in so many different ways, typically accumulated unjustly, and forces the world to follow certain rules in order to entrench such advantages forever, there is an ethical perspective where defying such rules is an act of resistance.

You are right that there are situations where that is true.

For most activities in the United States, in 2021, this mode of analysis is flat out wrong.

Realizing this distinction is a path to liberation.

Your insistence in using words like "liberation" gives a sense of your ideological zealotry.

That’s projection.

If you mean that it annoys you that any kind of copyright/IP violation is described as ‘stealing’ then I share your sentiment. This is a real crime though, and most people call this stealing.

I take it you think pirating things is not stealing either?

"Stealing" a digital product implies that every stolen copy is a net loss for the distributor. It's definitely not.

Of course, it's not like if you clone a file on your hard drive 10 times, the manufacturer of what you're cloning loses tenfold. But every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss. I don't know what the "every stolen copy" argument has to do with anything. Not everyone who downloaded would have bought. But that can't simply be calculated with some neat "every stolen copy" slogan. It is an argument to justify the thieves.

> but every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss.

i bought lots of products only after pirating them. would i not have done that i would not have bought many things at all. I also fondly remember simply not having the funds to buy software and pirating them was the only way to move forward. in both cases my "stolen" copy should not account for a loss of sale and the former even supported making a sale at all....

Your post is a bit unclear to me, I'm not sure which side of the argument you're defending, but

> every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss.

No, because like you said, that implies that you'd have bought the product if pirating it wasn't possible. If I want to pirate a game but it's not available, I won't buy it either.

> It is an argument to justify the thieves.

I'm not justifying "theft" - or piracy in this case -, I'm just saying that you can't equate the two. Piracy and theft are two very different things, with different motives, and different consequences of the distributor.

Stealing implies someone being deprived of something. I don't condone pirating but the argument isn't invalidated merely because it 'justifies' the act itself.

So how would you call it?

The "piracy is theft" motto is just false, but you can keep both words in their own context you know. So, I call that "piracy".

unauthorized copying / distribution.

A copy of the source code has been stolen.

... or been acquired without permission?

for me stealing implies change of possession. this does not apply here. what might have been taken is the possibility to monetize it the way they imagined or that they had been hurt by the PR afterwards and similar things. but nothing has been stolen everything is still in place were it was before and nothing is missing except for some of the confidence in their infrastructure security.

"Hello, I'm calling to report that the 16-digit sequence, expiration date, and 3-digit security code of my credit card have been replicated and are now known to persons whom I did not give permission to utilize."

"Sir, are you calling because your credit card was stolen?"

"It was not stolen!! I still retain possession."

So I'm reasonably sure that if you dont cancel the card after losing possession, you can be held liable for transactions that occur with the card at that point. Especially if your PIN is also compromised.

You're not liable for transactions that occur fraudulently when you still retain possession of the card.

So yeah, it's an important distinction.

... "hello, my credit card data has been acquired and used without permission. I still possess the card but want you to freeze the account and a new card mailed to me afterwards."

do you see how this is just more accurate?

It's not. And with more and more drm nowadays piracy is actually something of a must if you are to enjoy the product you paid for.

It's you paid for it, it's not a piracy.

you wouldn't download a car, would you?

me? if I could...

in the same way that you can steal secrets

When I copy your secrets, you no longer have secrets - just information that someone else also has. When I copy your code, you still have the code.

before you copy my code I own [the only copy] after you steel/copy it I no longer own [the only copy]

If you steal my secret code, then I no longer have secret code.

The question is whether the secrecy itself has value. I may perceive that it does, and you may conveniently perceive that it doesn't.

It's a dubious mindset, to believe that it's your own call to decide whether something should be of value to someone else.

They are still secrets so long as you dont go punlish them but use them yourself

Code is worthless on it's own.

Intellectual property is not physical. Think about it.