Talk:Software cracking

message: Groan . . ., whilst the "we reflect how things are, not how they should be" this entry also has to acknowledge the many other activities, most of them legal, that many programmers call hacking, and will probably have to explore the degree of disjointedness (though sometimes not as clean as some would claim) between the PC cracking/warez communities, the demo coders and their ilk, and the Unix hackers that have gravitated to Linux, BSD and so on. --Robert Merkel.
This page answers the question asked on Hacking wondering why Hackers got confused with Crackers. <sarcasm>Thanks a lot, buddy.</sarcasm> -- Ed Poor
Redirected to talk:Hacker and talk:Software cracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cunctator (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 December 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: From {{Noredirect|Talk:Software Hacking}}

message: 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 Also, sites that contain huge lists of outdated cracks with no actual academic content are simply not appropriate.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)
thread_title:  Removed outside links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Text removed 5-July-2006 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  desperate and damaging measures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's a good thing for Microsoft and Adobe 

message: Shareware is annoying!! With the nag screens and limited feature im glad cracks exist!
This has nothing to do with this article & is off topic, please stay on topic --VandalRemover 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying! 

message: Cracks.AM should be removed, because it's a very dangerous site that may destroy your computer.
According to SiteAdvisor Cracks.am is RED
Evidence: 
According to WOT Protection rating system, it's rated as "Untrustworthy"
Thank you for your time, Jinyaho. --Jinyaho 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracks.AM = Dangerous 

message: Currently says: "For floppy drives at first errors to the floppy were intentionally written to the floppy and the software would look for the errors. Because of the operational of Commodore Floppy Drives this would cause the floppy drive heard to bang against the edge and could cause the drive head to become misaligned."
I think this is unclear. I'm not certain of the facts of this case, but I think it should probably be corrected to something like this: 
:For floppy drives, errors were first intentionally written to the floppy disk and then the software would seek to read the errors. Because of the operation of Commodore floppy drives this would cause the floppy drive head to bang against a limiting edge and could cause the drive head to become misaligned. 
If my changes remain true to the facts I think they improve the intelligibility of the passage. Alas, I did not save my old C= magazines where one might find reliable sources on this. (This was before the public Internet, for you youngsters.) If you can verify or falsify this, please comment here or make the change. I think it would help to state (or restate, since it is mentioned in other contexts) why the software seeking to read the errors served as copy protection in this case. —Blanchette (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten some of the history section (in particular the parts about floppy drives and ROM cartridges) before I saw this discussion.  Check out the newer version and see if the intelligibility is improved.  Feel free to change as needed.  Someone needs to add some info about usenet and internet activities, as I left only a token sentence from the previous version. —Blazotron (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodore floppy drive. Wha? 

message: "An example of this could be an expensive engineering software that requires a dongle to operate." - Can someone give an example? Just curious, I'm not doubting that it happens. 74.78.116.93 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: engineering dongle thing

message: Oh really? Malicious users should be banned off the site right now!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms dos mode (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by David Calman

message: "Microsoft reduced common Windows based software cracking with the release of the NGSCB initiative in future versions of their operating system."
I don't follow this statement; it seems to say that Microsoft reduced software cracking in the past by doing something in the future.
75.17.157.194 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline trouble? 

message: Under the History section: "Of course cracking the software to expect good sectors made for readily copied disks without the need to meddle with the disk drive."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.5.68 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragment Alert! 

message: Thanks to the contributors of this page, I think that it is an excellent example of neutrality!
Steven (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I really appreciate this article's neutrality. 

message: Are there any reliable sources that go into antivirus purposely giving false positive results for cracked software? Here is a forum thread at norton.com where the forum leaders are saying that Norton Antivirus is supposed to flag illegal patches as viruses. [] That is a huge part of the software industry response. Information on it, along with countermeasures, would be informative. 94.222.176.14 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry response section - antivirus companies 

message: I'm thinking that the "Industry Response" section needs to be removed or merged into the history section. The stuff said there is a bit outdated. fintler (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry response section 

message: I oppose a merge of Crack intro. Consider merging Crack intro into Demoscene instead. fintler (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crack intro Merge 

message: Reading the source and http://daledietrich.com/imedia/pleadings/Microsoft_v_Viodentia_%28Complaint_Sept_22_2006%29.pdf, it appears the lawsuit wasn't over the crack, but over using copyrighted code in the crack. The copyright infringement charge was over the suspected use of Microsoft's code. I don't think this should be labeled as a lawsuit "over cracking software".
Also, "The distribution and use of cracked copies is illegal in almost every developed country" is an absurd statement without any citation. "almost every", "developed country", and there is not an example of a single country where it's illegal. 67.166.35.150 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit 

message: Guys, I'm adding a citations needed template because there is a severe lack of references. Please help out and add any citations that verify information you find here without breaking Wikipedia's content standards, such as the previous use of "Cracks.AM" within the article. I know this can be a bit tough due to the subject, but I'm sure we can make it happen. 70.60.159.97 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed Template 

message: Noob here who hasn't done any wiki editing before and doesn't want to touch stuff for fear of doing it wrong-
I noticed the 11th citation leads to a no longer existing web page
That citation is:  Fravia (November 1998). "Is reverse engineering legal?" 
which leads to link: <http://www.woodmann.com/fravia/legal.htm>
I was able to Wayback Machine this link to find what it was supposed to be pointing to. I think there's a precedent for using archives for citations which become unavailable? If so this one should be changed, I found it to be a worthwhile read, though probably a bit dated as it was written in 1998 (it seems).
Thanks,
NightHawk475 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A citation which is no longer available