It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG uses crack to remove FlatOut's protection?(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
mudlord: @Catshade: The warez scene shows attribution through NFO files. As explained earlier, it opens up a massive can of worms if GOG has those with along their installers.

but wouldn't GOG actually check the files and methods of disabling DRM before releasing it to the public?
this is what we are paying for, right? to get perfectly working, SAFE game.
...
and what's NFO. i just assumed it is something bad.
Posted May 06, 2010
A NFO is just a text file. Warez groups use them to show they made the crack, do rants to other groups for bad cracks, for ego, etc...
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
lukaszthegreat: and what's NFO. i just assumed it is something bad.

Basicly a info file :) J00 h4v3 t0 be Ub4r/1337 to r3@d.........
Posted May 06, 2010
I'd assume it dates from the old DOS 8.3 short filename restrictions. rather than desire to be uber.
Can't these crack scenes just use Creative Commons license or GPL or something (I'm not well-versed in copyright issues) for their crack? At least when the license is violated, they can rally the whole open-source scene groups behind them.

Nope.
In the same way that you can't rip a DVD and then release that rip under a new licence, the original code legally belongs to the licence holder. You can't just modify the intro to a movie and then pass it off as your own. If someone tried that, they'd be just as likely to bring the wrath of the open-source scene on their own heads.
Basic gist: Illegally modifying someone else's binary doesn't grant you any kind of legal rights to the code, or any rights of recognition should the publisher hypocritically decide to pack your executable into a later release of their game.
It doesn't surprise me that it's StategyFirst associated with this release. I've heard they're a bit sketchy.
Post edited May 06, 2010 by cheeseslice73
Posted May 06, 2010
hhehe my bad :) didnt know that
Posted May 06, 2010
In my opinion, there is something wrong with this situation. There may not be a legal issue, but there does seem to be an ethical one. Two wrongs do not make a right, I say; "stealing" someone else's illegal work is spiteful and hypocritical.
Regardless of that, do we really want an "illegal" version of a game to be sold here? It undermines the moral integrity of the service, and should be below the dignity of the responsible team. Attribution does not enter into it; it should not be an issue to begin with.
Now, using a known crack as a guide for creating your own crack? That's fine with me. No point in wasting time searching for security loopholes or whatever it is you need when the information is readily available.
Either way, I still support GOG, but I hope these types of situations won't become the norm.
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
Whitecroc: In my opinion, there is something wrong with this situation. There may not be a legal issue, but there does seem to be an ethical one. Two wrongs do not make a right, I say; "stealing" someone else's illegal work is spiteful and hypocritical.
Regardless of that, do we really want an "illegal" version of a game to be sold here? It undermines the moral integrity of the service, and should be below the dignity of the responsible team. Attribution does not enter into it; it should not be an issue to begin with.
Now, using a known crack as a guide for creating your own crack? That's fine with me. No point in wasting time searching for security loopholes or whatever it is you need when the information is readily available.
Either way, I still support GOG, but I hope these types of situations won't become the norm.

Any crack that is made to circumvent game code automatically belongs to the legal rights holder of the game.
Therefore, said rights holders are free to grab and utilize the crack to their own ends, as it is legally their property, despite being made by someone not affiliated with them.
It follows that the rights holders may extend that right to whoever they wish; including GOG. Therefore, using a crack to circumvent DRM, then selling the DRM-less product, is not in any way illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Posted May 06, 2010
Jésus Pork! Again?
Just another ignorant fool.
And by the way, that handsome viking is right. I must agree with him.
Posted May 06, 2010
I feel you did not read my post properly; my post was not about the legality, but the morals of the situation. If you find that the two are equal to each other, then I suppose I have little left to add.
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
Whitecroc: I feel you did not read my post properly; my post was not about the legality, but the morals of the situation. If you find that the two are equal to each other, then I suppose I have little left to add.

but how is it not moral to use it?
it is useful it is good piece of programming (i would assume at least) so why a legal owner of the game (aka gog in this case) is not allowed to use something useful?
And like i said: they cannot give credit like they do to people of dosbox.
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
Whitecroc: Now, using a known crack as a guide for creating your own crack? That's fine with me. No point in wasting time searching for security loopholes or whatever it is you need when the information is readily available.

You see, people that do programming usually recycle code, be it their own or the code other people wrote. We don't really like to reinvent the wheel every time ;)
Using a crack as a guide for creating your own crack would lead to the exact same crack; I don't really think you understand how these things work: you don't really have an "alternative way" of cracking a game as the method of the exploit is the same.
Sure, you could rewrite their hack and modify headers or rename functions (i/a) but that's just a waste of time on what, effectively, is the exact same code.
Posted May 06, 2010
Jeez. this still going on? I totally don't see the issue. GOG sells games that are DRM free and easy to use, without spending hours tweaking them. They've used a number of existing solutions and known solutions to achieve that, as well as some of their own solutions.
If people have spent years figuring out the obscure solution to a bug in a game, should they really not make use of that knowledge as long as it's ok to do so?
I have a few of the games on here, and I could probably get them to work if I was willing to spend hours trawling forums, downloading patches, tweaking settings, getting other software and so on. But for me, and most people, it's a huge convenience to have them on GOG where they've done that work for us. They never claimed, and I never expected, that they were re-writing the source code or something like that.
How about this analogy:
The owner of a house finds out that the current tennant has made copies of his key and has been illegally subletting his rooms to lots of people.
The owner confiscates the keys and throws them out.
The owner then hires a rental agency to manage the property, and gives them the keys that he confiscated, so they can give them to the new tennants.
Legally wrong? nope. Morally wrong? nope. In any way wrong? Nope. Worth arguing about? Nope.
Crackers complaining about people not respecting their intellectual property, funny? yep.
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
soulgrindr: Jeez. this still going on? I totally don't see the issue. GOG sells games that are DRM free and easy to use, without spending hours tweaking them. They've used a number of existing solutions and known solutions to achieve that, as well as some of their own solutions.
If people have spent years figuring out the obscure solution to a bug in a game, should they really not make use of that knowledge as long as it's ok to do so?
I have a few of the games on here, and I could probably get them to work if I was willing to spend hours trawling forums, downloading patches, tweaking settings, getting other software and so on. But for me, and most people, it's a huge convenience to have them on GOG where they've done that work for us. They never claimed, and I never expected, that they were re-writing the source code or something like that.
How about this analogy:
The owner of a house finds out that the current tennant has made copies of his key and has been illegally subletting his rooms to lots of people.
The owner confiscates the keys and throws them out.
The owner then hires a rental agency to manage the property, and gives them the keys that he confiscated, so they can give them to the new tennants.
Legally wrong? nope. Morally wrong? nope. In any way wrong? Nope. Worth arguing about? Nope.
Crackers complaining about people not respecting their intellectual property, funny? yep.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
Whitecroc: Now, using a known crack as a guide for creating your own crack? That's fine with me. No point in wasting time searching for security loopholes or whatever it is you need when the information is readily available.
avatar
AndrewC: You see, people that do programming usually recycle code, be it their own or the code other people wrote. We don't really like to reinvent the wheel every time ;)
Using a crack as a guide for creating your own crack would lead to the exact same crack; I don't really think you understand how these things work: you don't really have an "alternative way" of cracking a game as the method of the exploit is the same.
Sure, you could rewrite their hack and modify headers or rename functions (i/a) but that's just a waste of time on what, effectively, is the exact same code.

Thanks for the explanation. I suspected something like this was the case, but I felt it would be a logical extension of my argument, and as such included it.
I have given this a bit more thought, and have concluded that I will just have to wait and see. While I'm not sure I like how the general attitude to this seems to be that those dirty, hippy, Communist pirates* deserved what they got - stinkin' thieves that they are - some of the arguments presented concerning the legal aspects of the dilemma (as it were) seem worth considering.
These laws, as described here, seem to be written so as to address situations precisely like these, and while five months on this forum have certainly skewed my idealistic views on copyright and the like a bit, I nevertheless feel it is a fair assumption that the relevant legal paragraphs were written with the greater good in mind.
Is this affiliation with pirates something we want, even if it's legal? My intuition says no, but my intuition also told me that it didn't matter if I switched doors or not. (Switching gives you a 2/3 chance of not getting a goat).
*I've been itching for an excuse to use that turn of phrase all day; apologies!
Posted May 06, 2010
avatar
Whitecroc: Is this affiliation with pirates something we want, even if it's legal? My intuition says no, but my intuition also told me that it didn't matter if I switched doors or not. (Switching gives you a 2/3 chance of not getting a goat).

The current argument aside, I absolutely love the Monty Hall problem :-D
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG uses crack to remove FlatOut's protection?(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)