It's even possible that the license agreement for the crack, if there as any, doesn't prohibit using it in a rerelease. After all, they did release the crack for download on the internet, so it's assumed that it's either public domain or there is some sort of implied or explicit license that goes along with it.
The cracked version could be considered a derivative work of the original, so in that sense EA does own it. Though a crack tool as a standalone utility would not be a derivative work.

Perhaps I see this too easy:
game + DRM = retail version
retail version - DRM + cracking group comment = cracked version
Therefore the only difference between the cracked and original DRM free version is the comment made by the cracking group.
I doubt there's more than 1 way to remove the DRM.
I also doubt GOG would accept a DRM version from which they would have to remove the DRM.
There are (official) tools and/or procedures to remove the DRM.
Cracking groups probably have or know those as well.
If this is an edited version of the cracked executable, I think it's likely Activision provided it.
As for any alleged copyright issues, there are none.
The Fairlight executable is a cracked one with the DRM removed.
Therefore it's them who are guilty of copyright infrigment.
There's also no copyright claims in their NFO for their 1.0.7.4 release.
On a side note, their NFO for Arcanum is a nice read.
Byt he way there's no line in there stating you should buy the game to support the developer and publisher.

To be fair, I am 99% certain that those programs/procedures (if they exist beyond "Stop using the library") are designed to be used with the source.
I really doubt Starforce made a program to rip their DRM out of an executable :p

I'm sorry for rudely dismissing what you said rather than discussing it, but I did read your comment and understood it clearly enough.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing that making cracks is OK and it is those who spread them around that are at fault. Rest assured that I do not feel that way at all. Distribute cracks all you like and I'm happy, but when you distribute cracked software (or even uncracked if it's not though legit channels) and you get demoted in my lexicon from "cracker" to "pirate".
Nope. There is little resemblance. One is an EULA which claims that something illegal is legal if you do something they don't expect you to do with the expectation that this is sufficient dilligence to act as a legal defense. The other is a simple appeal to support those who made something you like with no legal pretense at all.
Why not? This seems non-sequitor.
Leak? I think we can be fairly confident that they are made with the intention of being made public. Are you talking about leaking cracked software rather than the crack itself? If so, then that would explain why we're on a different wavelength. Distributing software in contravention of copyright law is illegal for good reason - think we can agree on that.

There are at least 2 ways. Either leave it there but neuter it, or strip it out entirely to get the file in its original pre-DRM state. I would suspect that the latter approach is used (especially if the non-DRM file is much smaller than the DRM version), in which case you're right and rpgcodex's "evidence" proves nothing whatsoever.
Agreed. To do so would be putting an unnecessary burden on themselves. It is possible that they did accept a DRM'd file, but I find it unlikely.
Very possible.
If there was a Fairlight intro or something left inside the exe it might have been open to interpretation. As it stands, crack-or-no-crack there is nothing in that exe that is not from Troika and Activision.
Urgh, what is this whole uproar about anyway? There's no good reason to believe it's a Fairlight crack, and if it is then it's still a non-issue.

Games wouldn't need cracks if the developers or publishers wouldn't put DRM in their games or products to begin with. Instead of using DRM they could try to get a law passed for the pc and video game industry that would protect their products like movies and music is protected. Then they should try to provide proof that someone somewhere made an illegal crack by checking the registration codes that pop up on their home sites. If a game's code is entered more than once on the same day then they would know; and if they were smart enough to put certain trace-back software on their site{s} they could find the culprit and turn them into the FBI. Of course this is assuming the perpetrators don't have encrypted log-on software running at the time to block their attempt. Computer crime is hard to fight or stop because of the many ways a person can hide their tracks. I know. Because I have occasionally worked "Freelance" for companies and government law enforcement in these matters. Anyone is welcome to agree or disagree with me. I'll check back in a few days. I have to go to work now.

The thing I have never understood about the fight on piracy is why corporations throw millions into suing downloaders and next to nothing is done about the uploaders. I'm not talking about the preople making cracked exe's but the people uploading the iso's. If the big corporations want to stop piracy then they need to cut it off at the source, if the only thing people could get there hands on is the damn exe files there wouldn't be any piracy. But no filesharing sites are allowed to continue distributing these torrents (and making money off it) while big Activision goes suing a 14 year old for downloading MW2.

Simply put if these crackers think so highly of the software they are cracking, they wouldn't crack it. They wouldn't crack it so that they can ensure the producers of said software get the monetary compensation they deserve.
Providing the ability for others to use such software for free while urging people to by it, does not cut it. Just like those stupid little claims on ROM sites.

For the exact same reasons that they don't really do it for movies or music. Bad publicity.
Games have pretty much always been gotten in one of three ways: Usenet, Torrents, and IRC. I am not familiar with how Usenet handles things, but Torrents and IRC are pretty hard to take out. You stop Suprnova or PirateBay, another twenty sites take their place. And the legal fees involved in suing a private tracker just aren't worth the hassle.
So that leaves taking out Little Billy and his Grandma. And while that does make people think twice, it also makes you look pretty bad. And since it would actually have to be EA or Activision doing the lawsuits (and not a blanket organization like the RIAA or MPAA), that actually matters.

Hmm. I guess that's the primary purpose, but I think there's a sizeable audience that uses cracks only to bypass any annoyances with their legit versions. Sometimes cracks are even needed to get a game working properly. I admit I'm somewhat grateful for cracks under the circumstances.

I don't follow your argument. You are saying they don't go after filesharing sites because of bad press? Surely it looks worse for a corporation the size of Activision suing kids than issuing C&D to torrent sites?
I agree there is nothing that can be done about IRC but then not many people these days use it or are even aware of its existence. Remember I am taking about just making it hard for people to get the torrents not making it impossible. The casual pirate only does it because its so bloody easy to do. All a larger company would need is to take some of that money they use for these utterly pointless lawsuits and invest it in online police teams. If Activision had a team of 5-6 people checking torrent and Usenet sites daily looking for any Activision games being torrented and issuing C&D orders on them it would be far more productive. This torrent sites only exist because they claim they don't check what is being shared (although we all know this is bare faced lie), if companies took measures like this then they would be made aware and would have to remove the torrents. In the same way YouTube has had to remove copyright videos for the same reason.
Eventually (after a long time granted but eventually) people would simply stop bothering uploading torrents knowing that they will be taken down almost as quickly. Files may even be pre-checked for content like YouTube does now. The harder you make it for people to get the cracks the more the casual pirate (the ones who are the real problem) is going to think "Ah sod this I will just buy it".
My point is a simple one. If you stop making the torrents available then people cant pirate as easily and over all piracy rates would decrease. Far more than the current system where people consider it an acceptable risk as realistically you have a one in a million chance of being caught.

You are expecting perfect diction at that time of night? Welcome to the interwebz my friend.

Just saying that the English language can be tricky like that. But then, it's not my native language, it's yours. I'm sure you know best ;-)

From my experience when English is a native language it's more abused. Maybe it's because non-English speakers are more likely to double check what they have typed. I find it amusing that 9 times out of 10 the person on a website typing "O HAY GAUYS IS TIS GAME GUD?" is from the UK. Usually Essex.

Actually, you may be on to something there. I never thought about it quite like that, but it makes sense in a way.
It's like... Right, I know I'm likely to catch Hell for this, but it's like Professor Higgins' former protegé says of Eliza Doolittle in "My Fair Lady": "She has to be a foreigner. No native Englishman speaks the language so perfectly." Or words to that effect.
SHAPE UP, YOU ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE! If we foreigners can handle your language properly, you should be able to as well :-D