GOG's partners probably couldn't care less about either, but on one hand we have GOG using ads to bring pirates to legal game buying and on the other we have users linking to crack sites to make it easier to remove DRM on products - and that might potentially lead to the biggest of no-no's: removing the DRM on a new game! Gasp!

True, a license holder might object to an abandonware site's activities and if they cared, they would - i.e. if they cared about the activity of abandonware sites, they would've shut them down already. Ergo, they don't really care about abandonware sites or their old games all that much. They are much more likely to care about their precious new games and DRM however.

So for GOG using advertising on abandonware we have: 1) publishers don't care about the abandonware site's activities vis-a-vis old games, 2) publishers do like the idea of turning pirates into legal buyers. Only a win. For GOGers linking to crack sites we have: Noooo! Not our DRMed new game!!!!! Only a negative.

Which is also good news for publishers. They may be sure that when GOG releases their game it will be deleted from that sites. Win-win.

Obviously their partners really don't care enough about those 'pre-cracked infringing copies' to make a fuss of it, hence the term abandonware. I assume they only care about their own game/IP, and that's why AFAIK all games that are sold by GOG can't be downloaded on those websites anymore (the download link will redirect you to the respective GOG page).

This is the post I was responding to.

Which is why I used the word funding.
Meanwhile, they mysteriously do care about someone cracking abandonware himself because...

i see, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Because those same tools and techniques could be used to crack their precious new games which they do care about.

Because the thread contains links to sites that provide cracks to all games? It's not mysterious, it's explicitly stated by Galmatias before the thread is locked.

Perhaps, but I'd wager that's the way publishers & rights holders think. They only really care about the stuff they are currently making lots of money off of - that's the handle you have to use to grasp their logic. After that ... the rest falls into place. Anything that might threaten their ability to profit off a new product must destroyed for its evilness. Anything old, anything they aren't really making money off of anymore? They couldn't care less.

I'm not interested in backwards logic. This is strategy and tactics in the core. It's results that matter, so privateers are fair play.

Also, pursuing your rights costs money. And the lawyers that big companies employ aren't cheap. So, those "abandonware sites" are mostly ignored as going after them would cost them more than they could gain.

They usually cross the line if somebody is making money of Abandonware, than it's easier to make somebdy accountable for the costs (an they can go after the profits).

If you ever want to find the current rights holder of an old game, try selling it...

Good points :)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Where do you think people got good old games before Good Old Games? GOG is providing a legitimate outlet and they're advertising so people know who they are (seems many gamers still have never heard of GOG).

Why would partners object to GOG attempting to convert pirates into paying customers? Isn't that one of the primary objectives of copy protection?

Modern CP works the other way.

Well I know THAT'S not true - there's Descent 1 and 2 for a start - they are open source!
*Capt Pedantic strikes again*
PEDANTRY!