131–140 of 259 posts
This is more common than you might expect. The Windows port of Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents under Pressure being sold on Steam is the DEViANCE crack. Open the game's exe in a hex editor and you can plainly see "DEViANCE".
Related story, I remember years ago as a kid I bought a Prince of Persia PC game at a yardsale (on a CD), but early on in the game there was a riddle where you needed a password to get through this door, it was some cryptic message of a few numbers. I don't remember the exact format but it turned out the riddle was instructing me to go to page X, line Y and character Z of the manual for the game! I remember being so…
For those wondering, yes it happened to me, it was absolutely infuriating like "man this fucking game is full of bugs", lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cracking is about removing anti-features, typically copy protections. It pairs well with pirating, but neither one strictly requires the other.
> Cracking is about removing anti-features Anti what features? Piracy?
Like parent says, cracking and piracy pair well, but I've had to do it many times just for compatibility reasons, on software I had purchased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could. They would lose, though
A No-CD crack might not be transformative enough to warrant copyright protection as derivative work in the US. But they could sue in a jurisdiction that is more likely to give them a favorable outcome. Handling of derivative works and the minimum threshold for copyright varies considerably between countries.
That was my scene back in the day when there was less risk of the Feds kicking in the door. At least back then most of us saw it as a learning experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cracking is about removing anti-features Anti what features? Piracy?
Anti-backup, Anti-I-don't-have-a-cdrom-on-this-machine, Anti-I-lost-the-stupid-dongle, etc. Like parent says, cracking and piracy pair well, but I've had to do it many times just for compatibility reasons, on software I had purchased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we sure they didn't just lose the source code entirely?
Probably unbuildable anyways without a lot of effort if you can't recreate the workstation that was building it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those modifications have a copy-right they do not own...
A compiler author does not own the output of the compiler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He knows what cracked means. I think you misunderstood.
Not much room to misunderstand, and if he knows what cracked means what's going on should be obvious.