cracking software..., being a jackass about it Options

[hobgoblin]

so im sitting here, wondering if the act of cracking software leaves a uncracked copy or not.
(i find the not to be highly likely)

that is, could a hacker buy software legally for a comlink, crack it and still have the uncracked software sitting on said comlink, happily patching away?

then at some later time the hacker could re-crack said software for a new, up to date cracked copy?

[Wasabi]

Only if you can duplicate the uncracked software.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[hobgoblin]

its really true then, backups are a non-concept in SR (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Aaron]

I believe that the act of cracking them is what makes one able to copy them. If you need a reinstall, you can call the helpdesk, Mr. Law-Abiding-Customer.

Also, if I'm remembering correctly from my software piracy days (when I was a minor and long since any statute of limitations, if you're getting any ideas), we were working on the original diskette, since the copying came after the cracking.

[darthmord]

It is entirely possible someone managed to make the copy BEFORE cracking it. Not sure how to translate that into SR fairly though.

[Jaid]

It is entirely possible someone managed to make the copy BEFORE cracking it. Not sure how to translate that into SR fairly though.

except that in SR, cracking it is what makes it possible to copy the program in the first place.

[DireRadiant]

It's really much easier to think of Cracking copies as software accounts. You are then cracking accounts and faking the third party authentication process.

I have 6 copies of the latest MMORPG on my various computers at home. I have two accounts. All the copes get patched regularly. I can start running all 6 copies, but I can only use two at any one time because I only have two login accounts.

Get away from the thinking the binaries are all you need to run software.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Actually, you really only need the binaries to run the software.

What you are talking about is a subscription service... which is another cattle of fish entirely.

[DireRadiant]

Which is how the vast majority of the software I currently buy, use and write works today.

A standalone binary rapidly becomes out of date without some means of keeping current.

[hobgoblin]

that would be the registration option. something the cracking process strips out...

[Rotbart van Dain...]

that would be the registration option.

Not quite - more like the Horizon option of knowsofts.

Which is how the vast majority of the software I currently buy, use and write works today.

Hardly. Most software doesn't get the content it works with based on a subscription service.

A standalone binary rapidly becomes out of date without some means of keeping current.

As long as the interfaces don't change, there isn't any need to stay current for the software to work.

[DireRadiant]

Hardly. Most software doesn't get the content it works with based on a subscription service.

As long as the interfaces don't change, there isn't any need to stay current for the software to work.

I'm amused you know what software I use, and how it works. And I apparently don't.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I'm amused you know what software I use, and how it works. And I apparently don't.

What you should be amused about is the fact that if you carefully examine what software you actually use, you'll find that the applications with a subscription model for content are, in fact, the vast minority, compared to what software they run on.

[Adarael]

The question isn't "is that what the majority are now" but "Is that what the majority WILL be in 2070?"
I find it a plausible option.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

The question isn't "is that what the majority are now" but "Is that what the majority WILL be in 2070?"

Actually, in this specific case, it was the former, not the latter. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Generally speaking, it is not the way SR chose, as by RAW, self-written software or FOSS degrades just as fast.

Coming back to the original question, per Unwired p. 108, nothing keeps you from actually copying the program before it is installed... though it's useless as well until registered.

[Adarael]

I know, man, I was just trying to pull it back on topic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Warlordtheft]

So this begs the question:

Do you need more than one copy of the same program (such as firewall)? Which could be on everything from your commlink to house cleaning drone.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

If you cracked it, no. Otherwise, yes.

BTW - personally, I'm leaning towards the 'cracking a program generates a freely usable copy, leaving the original intact'. Otherwise, you don't need Databombs and Encryption anymore to secure your paydata from hackers - just slap Copy Protection on it and nobody will ever be able to touch it, since it requires hours to remove.

It is a non-issue, too, as nothing prevents a hacker to simply use Spoof to make his program look copy-protected and registered, then simply get the patch.

[DireRadiant]

What you should be amused about is the fact that if you carefully examine what software you actually use, you'll find that the applications with a subscription model for content are, in fact, the vast minority, compared to what software they run on.

I get my entire set of OS in various flavors via subscription. I get my "productivity" software via subscription. I get the games I play as a subscription.

There is a small set of software I don't pay for a subscription, but I still subscribe for updates.

I don't build my machines from anything other then my subscription software to begin with. And the rare case where I add something that isn't from my subscription usually involves some form of subscription, paid or otherwise.

Keep telling me I don't know what software I run.

BTW, I declare the subscription costs on my taxes, so if I'm lying to you about this, I'm also lying to the taxman. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Keep telling me I don't know what software I run.

If you honestly believe that you need to pay a monthly/yearly fee to keep the binaries of your OS simply running, I will - but it obviously won't do anything. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Dr Funfrock]

OK, so anyone here actually installed a copy of Windows, ever?

Copying windows is easy. You stick the CD in a drive. You copy it. Done.
The problem is that when you install windows it immediately calls up the Microsoft server, with the full specifications of your system, to confirm that a copy with that same serial number isn't running on another system.
So yes, backing up software and copying it are two completely different things. I could take my Windows CD and go install it on 20 different PCs, but none of those copies of Windows would activate, and all of them would stop working after 30 days.

So the idea that copy protection stops you from running multiple copies of the same program, but doesn't stop you having those multiple copies, is perfectly reasonable. Where it falls down is this idea that Registration and Copy Protection are different things. Unfortunately, given that cracking software has some nasty game balance implications, I'm not really what other solution best fits. It's my feeling that these balance issues mostly arise from the fact that hacking is so heavily dependent on software, instead of being a Stat + Skill roll. You could even remove the idea of software having a rating altogether, putting the focus much more heavily on the skills and abilities of the hacker. To attempt an action they simply need to have the program; rating is irrelevant. A hacker with the skills to crack softs and the like makes a saving on their setup costs, which probably doesn't even match the points they spent on having the Software skill in the first place.
Oh, and it makes Technomancers a bit less fucked, too. 1BP per Complex Form? Much more reasonable.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Not quite.

Activation of Windows after installation ties the software to a specific hardware and those ties become integral part of the software - which in turn doesn't prevent it from being copied, but from working on other hardware. Of course the company won't allow you to activate multiple times without paying multiple times.

So far, that's pretty much what SR did.

Just, there is an additional Copy Protection that actually prevents the software from being copied by RAW.

[Heath Robinson]

The core thing to pay attention to is that the sales model for Software presented in RAW makes no damn sense. None at all.

Microsoft has product churn, where a "new" product comes out every year or two and people "upgrade" to keep up with the times. In 2070 software companies are apparently far more philantropic than even that, letting you keep software up to date forever and apparently drag their budget out of thin air to cover it. This makes no sense whatsoever. Microsoft even tried to persuade noncommercial users to switch to a lease model that promised them more profits. Microsoft was meant to be killed off by the badass corps that inhabit 2070 before they were even minnows.

Corps claw a profit from the public wherever they can. They'd keep product churn, switch to a pay-for-patch model or lease you software. SR4 does not represent any of these commercial models when it provides rules for legally purchased software. It's insane.

[hobgoblin]

could be its nickle and dimed under the lifestyle of the user, after the initial purcase...

cracked software do not, so each purcase is a up front one...

[Heath Robinson]

From an abstract perspective there's no damn difference between paying for patches and leasing your software except what happens when you refuse to pay. If you can nickle'n'dime your software lease, or the saving for the product churn "upgrade", then you can nickle'n'dime your patch costs. Patch costs are canonically 10%, meaning that they're only slightly more expensive than saving for an entirely new program for the next year (~8%). How can a 2% difference be the basis for rejecting nickle'n'diming one cost and accepting another?

Or, if you claim that 10% is the difference between the patching costs and the nickle'n'dimed budgeting/lease costs, how do you explain the patches for a Rating 1 Exploit program costing more than the program cost in the first place?


Also, how does a Squatter nickle'n'dime the costs on Rating 4 combat programs whose combined patching cost is higher than their lifestyle cost?