REQ: Stolen trainers to be removed from GCW

[Joe Forster/STA]

Originally Posted by PWizard

So, what's the verdict on this one? Has Empire looked at it? Will GCW continue to support stolen trainers?

We don't know: Empire hasn't replied to my question yet. (Toldya he's extremely busy!)

[...] By the way, such code theft happens on larger scales, too. Many serious companies have been caught using GPL-licensed material in their own, proprietary, non-GPL-licensed work. Unfortunately for the original authors, judges don't know shit about GPL and serious companies have serious lawyers to defend them so the outcome of such cases is not obvious. I hope that, in contrast, our one-man judge and executor will come upon a satisfying sentence.

[instant]

Hmm.

If I am not mistaken, the CH content that appears on GCW are the 1 MB large "PROMO" trainers with +1 option? Hardly a loss if you ask me.
Still, /wave to Chris and the others at CH and wish you stuck around on Avault


That said, stealing code and promoting it as your own is lame and should obviously be shunned. Selling it is even worse.

Having said that, I dont see what the big deal is - and dont see why you cant opensource your trainers so more people can learn the fun of making trainers and see how the pros are doing it.

/cheers

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by instant

Hmm.

If I am not mistaken, the CH content that appears on GCW are the 1 MB large "PROMO" trainers with +1 option? Hardly a loss if you ask me.
Still, /wave to Chris and the others at CH and wish you stuck around on Avault


That said, stealing code and promoting it as your own is lame and should obviously be shunned. Selling it is even worse.

Having said that, I dont see what the big deal is - and dont see why you cant opensource your trainers so more people can learn the fun of making trainers and see how the pros are doing it.

/cheers

Because he wants to run a business!

I have done ASM tuts which are in the coders section of this forum for a few years now, and some people have learned from it and grew from it. Others realise they are either..

1. too dumb

2. no patience

3. cannot grasp the basics of ASM

So they give up.

So for CH to release open source is not beneficial to anyone who doesnt want to learn, infact that statement is kind of silly.

[instant]

Just because you disagree with something does not make the statement silly.

It all depends on the quality of the tutorial and what skill level the reader has beforehand. I still believe that a reader who has access to both tutorials and a rich environment of source code will be able to more easily discover implementations and methods of doing trainers.

Have not read any tutorials on this forum, but from other forums I would say that some of them have been somewhat lacking for me to get a clear understanding of them... or written "hastily" so they are only usefull to a very limited number of people who have the patience to read Ghetto-speak or are already familiar with the material being discussed.

I am sure CH would still make money even if they opensourced their trainers. As they are the biggest and most organized cheat site on the internets, and most people will not code a trainer even if they are given the source. The only risk that could happen is that people who copy trainers and present them as their own work would have an easier job at it. But giving them the full source would perhaps give them enough information so they would be able to make their own trainers, or interest them in such.

Additionally, from other 'scenes' the objective has always to be FIRST (and sometimes with QUALITY). If someone copies a low option trainer and release it much later, what loss is there in terms of creds..

I'd think that anyone who is a user here are not downloading trainers from CH (because of the membership stuff) and CH users hardly visit GCW because it is part of another 'internet' (i.e. the non subscription based one...)

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by instant

Just because you disagree with something does not make the statement silly.

It all depends on the quality of the tutorial and what skill level the reader has beforehand. I still believe that a reader who has access to both tutorials and a rich environment of source code will be able to more easily discover implementations and methods of doing trainers.

Have not read any tutorials on this forum, but from other forums I would say that some of them have been somewhat lacking for me to get a clear understanding of them... or written "hastily" so they are only usefull to a very limited number of people who have the patience to read Ghetto-speak or are already familiar with the material being discussed.

I am sure CH would still make money even if they opensourced their trainers. As they are the biggest and most organized cheat site on the internets, and most people will not code a trainer even if they are given the source. The only risk that could happen is that people who copy trainers and present them as their own work would have an easier job at it. But giving them the full source would perhaps give them enough information so they would be able to make their own trainers, or interest them in such.

Additionally, from other 'scenes' the objective has always to be FIRST (and sometimes with QUALITY). If someone copies a low option trainer and release it much later, what loss is there in terms of creds..

I'd think that anyone who is a user here are not downloading trainers from CH (because of the membership stuff) and CH users hardly visit GCW because it is part of another 'internet' (i.e. the non subscription based one...)

I just have to say a big NO to that.

If you cant follow some tutorials out there then you would never understand period.

It also depends of course on the level of the tutorial, only knowing a smattering (basic knowledge) of ASM and jumping into something like injecting your own DLL's etc then it will go way over your head.

Looking at source code will not help you understand the ideas or knowledge behind what your looking at, only how in lamens terms that particular source will work, so in a way your only learning in the region of 5-10% of what you should know to fully understand.

I can tell you GCW is talked alot at CH, people sending people here to get cracks for games and so forth, so im assuming quite a handful of CH paid customers actually may come here, perhaps not to the forum but to GCW anyway.

Anyways, In short, if you wanna learn what there is to learn, then Learn it dont as TippeX said be spoonfed the information as that will not learn you anything.

[Joe Forster/STA]

Originally Posted by instant

Just because you disagree with something does not make the statement silly.

Agreed. However, it's up to the author to decide under what license his or her software is released. As I wrote already, I'm also for free software, therefore my upcoming GNU-style utilities will also be released along with full source: I've had lots of struggles and lots of fun creating them and now I'm giving them back to the global community that I gleaned examples from. I have a job and I don't need to make money from my hobby programs. But, again, this was my choice.

Originally Posted by instant

I am sure CH would still make money even if they opensourced their trainers.

Also agreed. Free (as in "free beer") software is orthogonal to free (as in "free speech", aka open-source) software. Most users know shit about coding, they might not even be able to compile the published source.

Originally Posted by instant

Have not read any tutorials on this forum, but from other forums I would say that some of them have been somewhat lacking for me to get a clear understanding of them... or written "hastily" so they are only usefull to a very limited number of people who have the patience to read Ghetto-speak or are already familiar with the material being discussed.

Many programmers hate to write documentation or even comment their source, with the attitude "if you don't understand it yourself, you're no worth of making use of it anyway". This is, actually, sad as there are lots of people whose lack of talent is contrasted by a strong will to learn. Help them and they will also become good programmers - although not as flexible as truly talented ones -: you know, the "work horses" working under the supervision of someone with greater knowledge and freeing this boss of theirs from having to do simple jobs, ones that are "below" his talent. There's definitely a need for such people, too!