So you're saying that... cracks are bad because if they weren't bad then they wouldn't exist in the first place? That entire argument is a meaningless tautology.
I think you need to reread what I wrote.
I'm sorry for rudely dismissing what you said rather than discussing it, but I did read your comment and understood it clearly enough.
If the crackers didn't pass their work to anyone, it wouldn't get out there... So I very much doubt they are as innocent in distribution of their "work" than you make it sound.
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".
Likewise, these statements are just as flimsy as those on ROM sites where they claim you "must delete a ROM within 24 hours if you don't own it". It's just a lame attempt at trying wriggle out of any legal responsibility that their actions may have.
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.
If they really felt so highly of the games and the related developers, then they wouldn't make the cracks in the first place (or at least not until the game is several years old and actually in need of one).
Why not? This seems non-sequitor.
But no. Let's be honest here, they only make cracks in an attempt to get "fame" at being the first to do so and then invariably "leak" their cracks out to wherever so that others can use it.
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.
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.
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.
I also doubt GOG would accept a DRM version from which they would have to remove the DRM.
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.
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.
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.