Talk:Software cracking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See talk:Software Hacking for earlier discussion.
Contents |
[edit] re first para
What's the difference between illegal and criminal? --bodnotbod 04:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Its a grey area really, for example in the USA reverse engineering a program thats encrypted is "Illegal" according to the DMCA but its not really "criminal" as far as intent goes. Whereas someone cracking software protection for purposes of distributions not only "illegally" breaking the law but is "criminal" in intent. Basically its a matter of legality vs. intent. ALKIVAR™
15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Simple copyright violation (rights infringement) is contrary to statute (hence illegal), but not criminal. It could result in a civil suit where the offended party could claim recourse for the infringement, but not a criminal prosecution and possible convition. The concerted effort to deliberately circumvent protection technologies is not only illegal it has been made expressly criminal, and subject to prosecution. Cain Mosni 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs a History section
Needs a History section. The famous Bill Gates letter accusing everyone of being a pirate might frame the discussion though of course the first Microsoft software didn't have any copy protection. I assumed the first software cracking was on early games on the Apple II and C64. There should be a discussion of the use of aliases and splash screens and the distribution network of BBCs (often with the phone number on the splash screen). This is tangential to the subject of actually doing it, but there is a real history there that ought to be documented here. Tempshill 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ite... that's going to be a hack, er, heck of a project, trying to find resources that can document the history of software cracking. I'm also curious: Do we mention specific groups? Link to possible articles about them? Link to their websites (if still extant)?
- Not that I'm saying I'm not interested in working on the history here, of course, but it'll take some doing. If nobody minds, I'll be legally conservative in my linking and try to not get wikipedia in trouble. c.c
- lilewyn 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed outside links
These links seem to be self serving and not entirely relevant to the article. Although they do contain a small amount of history, it seems that they have been posted here to increase someone's google ranking than to actually contribute to the article. I think a general references section should be added however. I haven't found any suitable sites as most disappear quickly due to their nature or are simply spam havens with no useful content. Also, sites that contain huge lists of outdated cracks with no actual academic content are simply not appropriate. I don't feel this article should become a shelter for links to direct sources of pirated software, but rather a way to gather information on the culture and technical data related to software cracking. fintler 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing links b/c you don't want to create a "shelter for links to direct sources of pirated software" isn't helpful. Most people looking for cracks will type "cracks" into Google while those researching the issue would find it helpful. If you want to squelch the ability of people finding cracks for software you should delete the whole article so they don't know the concept exists. I don't recommend this though. Dcsutherland 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Text removed 5-July-2006
User 87.230.120.46 (talk • contribs) appended the following to the intro para:
- It is a great way to get back at the money hungry software corperations who only gives out demos and want you to pay for the full version. It's free but (Sadly) illegal. There are groups like Revenge Crew, Agression, etc. that help people get the full versions for free.
I've removed it because it seems POV and unencyclopedic. Does anyone want to argue for restoring it, or try to create a more acceptable version?
Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like something someone would say in a chat room, and besides the general idea of what is said here is being brought up in the BSA reference and a few other places. 152.131.13.1 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] desperate and damaging measures
"publishers have resorted to desperate and damaging measures such as StarForce"
is this really needed to be said in this way? Does not sound like NPOV to me. -Sedimin 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. (On further thought, our StarForce article says it has been damaging, both to publishers and to players. Nevertheless, this language is not encyclopedic.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Has a point!! Shareware nag screens are annoying and it should be legalized!!
[edit] It's a good thing for Microsoft and Adobe
I removed the following paragraph because it is unverifiable and uncited:
Cracking has also been a significant factor in the domination of companies such as Adobe Systems and Microsoft, all of whom have benefited from piracy since the 1980s. Vast numbers of college and high school students adopted readily available applications from these companies. Many of these students would then go on to use them in their professional lives, purchasing legitimate licenses for business use and introducing the software to others until the programs became ubiquitous. Cornlad 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, well done extermin8tor
Hey! I was looking for that!! well atleast its here!!
[edit] Effects section
The effects section is'nt entirely ontopic, this article is about computer software cracking, this is done by crackers and warez groups, so why is the distribution of xvid and mp3 included in the article. In my fairly informed opinion I think that someone should correct this, as it is off-topic.
corect me if im wrong though
[edit] Annoying!
Shareware is annoying!! With the nag screens and limited feature im glad cracks exist!
