http://mudlord.hcs64.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=7&pid=9#pid9
I did my research, and people wonder why they are having debugger issues in the game? The game was not fully stripped of the protection as I shown.
So GOG.com can go **** itself in the ear for breaking things on a matter of principle: in essence the game is not DRM free if the components still exist :/
Plus as a reverse engineer I am insulted how some companies can rip off other people's work just to make money. I seen this with another GOG game but now two times in a row?
Get real GOG. I'll gladly boycott your service as it shows people like us a huge amount of disrespect. I tried to use this service to not pirate, yet this is irony at its finest if it uses STOLEN scene property. It would be nice if GOG at least acknowledged the source instead of not saying anything at all....

Ouch...
GOG, please enlighten us why this happened.

Get over it.
If the 'scene' is looking for recognition, the 'scene' needs to grow up. If the 'scene' was at any point under the impression it had any rights over the material it RE'd, the 'scene' needs a reality check because obviously there's no such thing as 'scene' property.
If there's material out there that works, that material and any rights over it belongs to their rightfull owners, who happen to be the people who signed a deal with gog and those people can do whatever the hell they like with their property, including supplying gog with an already existing fixed exe or whatever instead of putting one togheter from scratch, wich honestly would be pointless in some cases.
How does the 'scene' feels about facilitating the illegal use of god knows how many copies of this game without the people who made it seeing a dime from any of those copies ?
Please, you can grab your righteous indignation and shove it wherever it pleases you the most.
The scene wants recognition ? Fine. Get the 'scene' to email all companies whose propertie the 'scene' is working on right now without any kind of anonimacy blanket informing those companies that the 'scene' is RE'ing their property and making it possible that the result of that work is being illegally distributed on the internet. Maybe that way the 'scene' will stand a chance of recognition in 3 or 4 years time when some of those games find their way to gog, assuming those companies are ok with it, which i'm pretty sure they are *cough*
And it took you 2 threads, 3 posts and god knows how many edits for this ? Really ? Jesus...

Look, I may have overreacted but my view still stands:
At least the customer should be told of this, so they can make their own moral choice whether to support GOG.com stealing code from others for profit or not.
And yes, if the groups complain, they get busted by the Feds and exposed. So how is that fair? The people in those groups have families too.
I didn't see the need for you to completely flame me for being the messenger.
Now I just feel I just shouldn't have looked at the EXEs at all, since this personal flamefest against me has started.

Ok, so if i misunderstood your intention i appolozige for being a bit rough, but your OP is not that of just a messenger, you took a hard stance there and so did i.
Most people around here are always up for talking things out. The tone and wording of your OP didn't gave any indication that you were interested in that at all.
You should know that gog probably doesn't get to pick and choose what files they get from the publishers, they are restricted to what they get or to what they're told to use by the publishers.
So gog is not stealing any code from anybody. That code rightfully belongs to whoever holds the ritghts over the material the 'scene' illegaly decided to RE and distribute. The rightfull owners of that code is not the 'scene', it never was to begin with.
As for telling customers, what good would that do ? Would it make any difference ? Is gog even allowed to do that under the agreements they sign with publishers ? Would it change the fact that gog tries to provides us with games DRM free to the best of their ability ?
Is the situation ideal ? No, but sometimes it's the best it can be done. Sometimes it's either that or no game at all. One thing is for sure, if the 'scene' wants recognition, the 'scene' better start making their own games isntead of just fiddling around with other people's work.
And i know that the people who do this can't have legit recognition for legal reasons, that's why it's so strange that they're apparently bothered with not getting any. Obviously i don't wish those guys any harm, even because at one point or another we have all benefitted from their work in one way or another, i was merely trying to illustrate why they will never be able to get recognition on legal channels, which includes gog.
And you or me or any gog customer should keep looking at whatever .exe files they want to, and by all means, when something like this comes up people should bring it up if they feel they should or if it bothers them or something, maybe just not in the way you did, that's all.

Which was my intent, since it does seem contradictory to the DRM free message, and plus, it conflicts with my ethics. If I release a program for free, I expect it for free. And seeing as I do know how to crack and things,and I do reverse engineer sometimes, I do see the outrage. I know personally I would despise someone profiting off my Star Wars Rogue Squadron work (I made it compatible with Win7 and shared the fix with some friends since the game is so old), plus other things.
Likewise with cracks, to me it just seems plain immoral to steal code from others, no matter the circumstances, hence my original viewpoint. So I guess your right in saying it is a can of worms to deal with.
So yeah, if GOG.com can give a explanation it would be nice at least. I just feel though that the EXEs should be clean of all DRM, since even most cracks apart from plain CD check fixes leave some remnants behind (like the Securom VM, and the SafeDisc components still present)
I admit I was hasty, but yes, I will remain vigilant in monitoring if DRM in some form is still present in GOG.com titles.

GOG already gave an explanation when this issue came up a while back, and pretty much all they can say it's that everything they do it's ok'ed by the publishers.
Here's the post in question if you wish to read it.
As for the remnants of DRM on the files, which i haven't verified myself and truth be told i won't bother so i'll take your word for it, personnaly as long as it's dead in the water and not doing anything or going anywhere i don't really care. Naturally others are perfectly within they right to feel differently and they can always contact gog directly and ask about it.

I read their response, although it would be nice if a pre-protection EXE is acquired before the protection is applied for updates in the event it uses Securom, SafeDisc, or StarForce.
My issue is that the remnants can cause issues potentially:
* Speed issues if its not a proper crack (and HOODLUM for FlatOut, did not clean out all the DRM)
* Debugger issues due to being a bad crack (like I seen in this forum for this game. This makes making trainers extremely difficult)
* Stability issues when running the game.
Thus those are my concerns. If I want to mod my own bought GOG.com game to support more reses, the protections might possibly get in the way since the warez group involved didn't do a proper crack. And reversing of Securom, SafeDisc and Starforce is a art in itself, a very exclusive art.
Its ironic though in that thread, that people complain about release group-based crackers, Its even more ironic that the release group's works are responsible for that game and for FlatOut's release here.
So if it wasn't for piracy, FlatOut here would not exist. So really, while release groups are considered "bad" for piracy, in general they did GOG.com a favour. :)

Can't help you with that, sorry. I really don't know what the implications would be in that scenario. Specially without taking a whack at it first to see what really happens.
I think you got things a bit wrong there. The people who made both games are responsable for both games being here. The publishers who signed on with gog are responsable for both games being here. Gog's work to convince publishers to have their games here free of DRM is responsable for both games being here. At best those groups helped to slightly expedite both releases through their work, but that's it. But their work also does alot of damage. so in terms of credit, if they want credit, they should be prepared to take full credit, for all the implications of their work.
Well, that's simplifying things a bit isn't it ? Kind like if i were to say that piracy is the only reason we have to deal with DRM in the first place. I know better, things are more complicated than that, so...
The fact that the people who hold the rights decided to go with a pre existing fixed exe doesn't mean they would not put one togheter if that was the only option. But like i said, sometimes is just pointless, and it's their pregorrative to use their property as they see fit, obviously.

Lets see, hackers crack game, make it available to play for free, publisher loses potential income.
Publisher 'borrows' hack, allows further commercial distribution using said hack, claws back potential lost income.
Hackers had their day in the sun making the game 'DRM Free'/pirate-able, now publishers turn the tables. If that annoys the hackers, they should stop cracking games and the publishers would be forced to use their own resources to remove their own DRM. I find the whole episode amusing in some kind of ironic way. I'd be slightly miffed if I were Captain Long John Silver and I was responsible for the borrowed hack, but then I wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.... well a peg leg maybe.

And that's the really weird part.
If a warez group asks for a tiny bit of credit, they will be exposed by the Feds. While the publisher gets off scott free for using cracks when we the end user are constantly being told piracy = theft.
So really, the warez groups get screwed over and the publisher profits off their work. Like what happened with Ubisoft and Rainbow Six Vegas 2.
But meh, I said my piece. I think I am just gonna let this lie and get over this thing.

I don't think it's weird. The warez groups break the DMCA (or similar EU law) by circumventing copy protection systems. The publisher have been granted rights by the copyright holder to circumvent the protection, so they aren't doing anything illegal.

I'm not saying that scenario above is ethical; it's just not weird - it's the law most of us live under.

I personally want to see copyright laws removed on the Internet except for commercial purposes. ie you can legally download any copyrighted material, but you can't legally sell it. Just my opinion. I am a creator, and I would be happy for my created works to be subject to this setup.

What you're forgetting is that the publisher can "get off scot free" because they either own the copyright or have the OK from the copyright holder. If you hold the copyrights, you can dictate what others can or can't do with your product. And also, the publisher isn't pirating the game, they're providing a crack for GoG to use so the end user can buy the game and not need a CD.

And about the "ownership" of the crack: even though the group created the crack, they're still using it to circumvent DRM and promote piracy along with "borrowing" code from the game to make the crack work (i.e. cracked .exe). They knew well before making the crack that it's illegal, so any assumption of ownership is moot. Kinda like why you don't see drug dealers trying to claim tax deductions for business expenses.

Hello Guys ... Just thought I would chip in on theGASMASK's last comment ... There was one drug dealer in Australia that claimed tax expenses for a botched drug deal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2968938.stm

Check it out :)

Whats paul.dll?