There is no crime using crack on game you own and developers and publishers can blame them selves for dooming PC game market by indroducing pontless and excessive DRM mechanisms that only harm legimate customers in the end and the pirates can laugh at us while playing their DRMless, hassle free and non internet requiring game that the legimate customers should have had access to in the first place.

I was under the impression that they mostly did. Anyway, wouldn't it be nice to credit someone's work, especially if it saves you time?

That really differs from country to country.

I think its clear that they never had access to the source code of some games in the library (they have directly said as much), but to assume that is true of all the games is a bit of a leap. Remember, in some cases, the publisher is also the developer or owns the developer of certain games, which means they very likely have complete access to the source code (assuming it still exists) and could easily have provided it to GOG. Plus, through GOG's efforts to find the appropriate rights holders, you can be certain they are in contact with both the publisher and developer (if at all possible, some developers, like their source code, no longer exist), which could also grant them access to the source (again, assuming it still exists).

sorry but no.
DRMs are a stupid response to piracy, but piracy was here before the modern growing or pointless DRMs.
In the 90s games merely required cd keys, and we're talking about those games. Gog.com isn't selling Assassin's Creed 2.
Today DRMs are just the desperate struggle of publishers to fight in what is now a niche market, I agree with you that they do more bad than good but it's not the cause, it's just a collateral effect of piracy in the first place

they even write hypocrite stuff like "if you like the game buy it!" on their .nfo files. The fact is that nobody has ever asked them to do that damn crack, developers doesn't want to see their game cracked in the first place. It's like someone does something with YOUR hard work that even hurts your sales and then they credit you asking the ones that have already downloaded the crack and opened the nfo file to "support you". It's not even ironic, it's just something that hurts a lot small development teams, to the point that sometimes they even need to close.
So frankly I don't get this thing about being nice with people that are famous only because they damage other people hard work. They can rott in hell if you ask me

Law and morality are not always the same. However the more one works outside the system, the less the system can/will protect them. I feel that is only fair.
Take, for example, unauthorized fan translations. They are illegal, but (imo) often not immoral. I do not feel that such a translator can claim more ownership over their own derivative work than the one who owns the original work. I do not feel they should get the same rights as if actually got permission, perhaps even paid for a license, to do what they did. For example if such a translator wanted money from the original content owner in order for them to use that translation or a part of it, I'd feel that was a bit scummy. Did they put hard work into their translation? Yes, most likely, but that does not give them more rights than the original content owner. For a translator to do so, they are claiming they have full rights over the work they do, yet denying that the original content owner has those same rights over the work they themselves did or paid for.
People, both in businesses and as individuals, wants "rights" to only flow one way: toward themselves. Yet these things must flow both ways.
I know my example is about something somewhat different. I know that reality is more complex and involves many variables that I did not cover. I merely wanted to share what my perspective was about about this sort of thing in general, and how I came to it.
A bit of what I've seen here and on RPG Codex is the assumption that rights only flow in the direction convenient for oneself. Gray areas, turning a blind eye, and so on exists not without reason. Some issues are so hard to resolve that hammering them out in law seems a herculean task. But if you are going to claim gray area morality, then you need to be prepared of the implications of it, including the invalidation of your own rights if the gray area invalidates those rights for others.
I hate how people seem to think nowadays that every idea needs to be owned as if it were some law of the universe. This goes for crackers and the like just as much as the big guys, and I think this thread shows that self-centered hypocrisy involving claimed ownership is not limited to the latter.

software is not an idea ;)

Not entirely true, in North America at least, one is allowed to modify a program in any way required to get it to work properly for them, if "properly" means different languages then translations are not illegal. So long as it is known that the original company owns the translations and not the translator.

It's because it is the consumer that matters. If there is no demand then the supply will naturally disappear, or at least be unused. However, so long as there is demand, a supplier will pop up somewhere.

CD keys are DRM. Anything that artificially restricts your ability to run a program on your machine is considered DRM. NoCD keys are DRM. Any form of copy protection is DRM.
Just because modern DRM has become more insidious and ridiculous to keep up with better copying technology doesn't mean older forms aren't DRM.
You might not like them, but crackers provide something REASONABLE people want. In fact, the prevalence of copy-protection cracking can be linked with the popularity with GOG. People don't want to be treated like criminals, they don't want artificial restrictions on their products, they don't want to have to load 4 DVDs to play a game, have their software phone home, nor do they want to have to buy a game again just because they lost their CD key or the book with the secret words needed to activate a game.
I crack all the games I purchase, if I can, because it is way more convenient for me. Of course, I'd rather just legally purchase games from GOG without the ridiculous DRM of past and present.

I think it's important to recognize the definition of DRM varies wildly from person to person. There's really not much point in trying to make everyone believe it is only this or that.

Not really. Cd Keys and the like have always been considered DRM. Copy-protection has always been considered DRM. SafeDisc, Securom, etc. have been operating long before the term "DRM" became popular. The current offerings are just evolutions based on the past offering.
Of course, rights management was alot difference when CD burners cost 300 bucks, when DVD burners were only used by presses, and Hard disks were <10GB in size, and people didn't own multiple computers.
The very term, digital rights management, which implies managing the right of access to a product, is quite self-explanatory.

Fan translations are typically given the benefit of the doubt because none of the copyrighted material is distributed by them (only a differencing patch to apply to it), and while some will take advantage of it to play illegally this is not their intent; piracy groups, however, release a self-contained, ready-to-install copy of the game along with the crack for the explicit purpose of playing illegally.
If the pirate groups were releasing a diff-only patch for the protected EXE--with acquisition of the actual EXE left up to the player--that would be a different matter, but that is simply not what they are doing.
It's not other people who have bizarre views about idea ownership, it's you! Copyright is an international concept that has been around for a very, very long time (the mindset behind it existed even before the laws themselves). Anything that isn't explicitly copyrighted is wide open for someone else to take (legally, if not ethically); while some people deliberately leave their work open for re-use under an "open source" or "copyleft" license this sharing mentality is not held by the vast majority of content creators.
If you want copyright law changed, do something about it. People who changed laws didn't do so by sitting on the sidelines and complaining about how things should work. Complaining that everyone is saying something is normal when hardly anyone actually considers it abnormal is a waste of time.

saying DRM are the cause of piracy it saying like lagers were the cause of WWII, it makes no sense, DRM are something bad created when pc games piracy was already a treath, first cracks born on Apple II and on the first commodore machines.
copy protections exists because people do cracks, not the other way around. And saying "I pirate games because i don't want to support their publishers with all those DRMs" is a lie, people pirate games because it's free and they have no consideration for the developers.

The relationship is, in ways, cyclical.
There are many reasons people pirate. I used to for the DRM reason, quickly realizing it's a poor excuse. Really I did just want to play the game but not support the DRM. I absolutely wanted to support the developer.

People pirate for many reasons. Its never right but there are good reasons to pirate. I myself pirate older titles that i cannot find elsewhere. Do you think the people who download from abandonware sites are no good pirates that don't give a shit about developers?

Sometimes a DRM can surely be a deal breaker, I refused to buy Assassin's Creed II only for the DRM, that stuff is just too much. But I'm not magically entitled of the right to pirate or crack the game just because it's not like I've wanted it to be. I just play something else