And when would would you have to activate it?
When it's on new hardware.
When would it be on new hardware?
I'd say when it's been moved or copied is a fairly safe bet.

And this is exactly why someone who writes a hacking program wouldn't want to use a copy protection scheme that phones home even once.
The authorities find a commlink at a crime scene, that has an hacking program on it, all they have to do is move that program to a different commlink, and trace the connection it makes when it phones home for activation, and they have a starting point for searching for the program's author.
Similarly if they nail the author and get control of the authentication server, they just trace all inbound activation requests to get leads on who's got hacking software.

What different copy protections? The book only describes one method, so presumably, that's what both corporations use to protect the common use programs that they sell, and the hacker underground uses to protect the hacking programs they sell.

Umm gee I don't know maybe 5 seconds after you first open the program or after a trial period.
I thought my windows xp analogy would be clear enough. When ever it is copied or installed it requires the activation code.
When I activated windows XP I used the CD key that came with it. However with in 30 days it requires I register with windows. They take that CD key check to make sure it hasn't been used and then sent me the activation code.

Now I assumed that the corps might take measures to ensure people can't ever share the activation keys.

Now the guys writing illegal hacking programs, aren't selling 10,000 copies. They can have each copy require a unique code (as in no other code will work) easier then a corp can.

With a corp issue program they give you a unique CD key but as there is alays the possibility of it being lost or the effort of editing each program as it goes out to accept just that one key. Multiple keys will function. Now some CD keys use your name as part of the generation. So part of the code links to what you enter in the name box.

Remember hacking programs are restricted NOT Forbidden. So the corps are writing and selling them to, and the corps WILL dam well want to know who is using there hacking programs.

It's absolutely clear what you're talking about. I'm just pointing out that neither the rules, nor the setting seem to support that view of how copy protection works in SR4.

Rules: No mention of requiring matrix access to be able to easily copy the program, just an "access code". No mention of the possibility of being able to make a non-working copy that is later "activated" by the access code or the copy protection is cracked, merely statements that you have to have the access code or break the protection to be able to duplicate (although how this interacts with traffic/signal interception is not addressed, hence the original question in this thread).

Setting: No mention of copy protection solely being a tool of legitimate software makers, and no mention of the possibility of a separate type of copy protection used by coders in the shadow community. The inherent dislike of those in the shadow community for chains of evidence that make their activities traceable which would ensure neither shadow community coder nor shadow community end user would find an activation-based scheme desirable.

Unique codes do nothing to address the fact that if it is designed to dial home for activation (even for relatively rare events like change of hardware), it exposes both the seller and the end users to being traced by the authorities, should either end of the activation chain get compromised.

That's funny, because I thought the very idea of copy protection was to ensure that addional copies don't get made unless they're authorized. Moving a program from one user's hardware to another means that the first user no longer has use of the program until it's moved back. There's still only one working copy, which was what the original purchaser paid for.

but if you look at real life DRM or copy protection systems today, the ability to loan someone your copy isnt part of the functions list. its more of a privilege we take for granted with physical objects then a right...

remember, when you buy programs today, your paying for a usage license, not the program itself.

when you buy say windows, microsoft gives you the cd or dvd with the os installation files on, your paying for that certificate with the serial and hologram on...

same with music. in essence you have bought the limited right to play the songs on the cd for yourself, your family and close friends. anything more is a public performance, and not part of the agreement.

its a legal wasps nest this, and a odd one at that...

because its called copy protection, my guess is that SR DRM (a more generic term for much of the same concepts) systems lock the copy onto the hardware of the comlink or other computer its installed on (kinda like what windows xp and later is attempting), and loaning does not figure into that lock...

Likewise, the abstraction for intercepting traffic/signals states that data in transit, when intercepted, may be copied "without any addional tests." The whole point I had when starting this thread was to get peoples' opinions on which takes precedence: "Can be defeated with a specific roll," or "without any addional tests."

Unfortunately, to be able to argue either case, we have to roll back the abstractions and figure out how the copy protection does what it does.

And nearly every usage license in existance specifies that you may only store and run the program from one set of hardware, with specific clauses that allow you to move the program to another set of hardware and run it from there, provided that the program is fully removed from the original set of hardware first.

yes, but to argue therefor that you can lend someone else a program by transferring it over the net is still quite a jump in logic. that clause is there to allow you to upgrade your hardware without having to buy every bit of software again (what outcry that would create).

like i wrote, loaning someone something you own is a privilege we take for granted, not a right set in stone.

Then, if it'll make it easer to understand the question, please consider the above example retooled to take "loaning" entirely out of the question. There's only one wage slave, upgrading to a new commlink, while a shadowrunner eavesdrops.

Or there's one shadowrunner, moving their software to a new commlink because it's the wrong brand for the extraterritorial facility the team's about to try to con their way into, and one of their teammates tries to intercept the traffic out of curiosity.

Personally, I don't care one bit "why" the scenario is happening, I'm curious as to what people's opinions are as to the "what" happens, in terms of the two different rules that the rulebook provides no details on how they interact.

So far, most the answers I've been getting seem to share the opinion that copy protection merely keeps the copy from functioning until the access code is entered or the copy protection is cracked, that it doesn't actually prevent the data from being copied.

Some people have further suggested that entering the access code involves a mechanisim similar to contemporary Product Activation. While I assume that works fine in the games of those who suggested it, I don't wish to introduce that element into my game, and asked if those people felt that it'd work any differently if the copy protection scheme were entirely self-contained in the program. This lead to a slight de-railing of the thread from my original purpose for it, which is why I'm trying to steer it back to the original question.

As for my own view, I came into this thread seeing SR4's copy protection as self-contained and strong enough to prevent copies being made through any normal means offered by a device's OS. In short, you don't get a non-working copy that you have to crack or enter the access code, you don't get a copy, period. Entering the access code or cracking the protection comes first. It is possible to obtain a copy via unusual means (e.g. intercepting signal and/or traffic during a program transfer) but the copy obtained is non-working, and must be cracked.

So far, none of the responses I've gotten have given me any reason to change that view. About the only thing I'm still waffling on is whether or not to let an access code unlock a non-working copy that was obtained through extraordinary means, but right now, I'm thinking the only option at that point should be breaking the copy protection.

Actually, having just read the description of Data Bomb, I'd say that might be open for debate. In my own games, I allow use of Data Bomb in any instance where a passcode/access code is entered, but I believe this may be a broader interpertation than what a strict reading of the text woud allow.

In defense of the product activation camp, the test for breaking copy protection could very easily be representative of setting up special spoofing and re-directs that make the program think that the copy is authorized.

It's worth noting, that whether you view breaking copy protection as setting up spoofs and re-directs for an activation, or merely breaking of a strong encryption that's intamately keyed with the hardware signature and has rootkit-like overrides blocking basic OS functions, the usual hacker programs are of no help in cracking it.

Dude you don't pay attention to a thing do you. THE hackers writing those illegal programs WOULDN'T have them dial home to be activated. They sell an limited number and thus can use different methods.

The BOOK doesn't mention copy protection AT ALL except that it exists and some rules on how hard it is.

Shadowrunners aren't going to buy there hacking programs from the corps. They'll either write the program them selves or buy the work of other underworld hackers. (be they ripped off corp material or written by underworld hackers).

There is NO reason to have the corps abandon modern product activation. Just make it more secure. Hacking programs ARE NOT ILLEGAL!. Read the book, Its Restricted, The corps will want to know WHO has bought there products. Especially when its hacking software.

Anyone who thinks the corps and the underworld would use the same methods for copy protection. Don't know the SR world very well.

Part of shadowrun is dodging data trails. When ever you buy anything thats not blackmarket your adding to the data trail. It may be on your fake sin, or to your forged credstick but you've left a electronic trail behind of what you've done.

hmm, do i smell a conspiracy?

Unless you're in a dead zone. Or inside a building constructed with materials that block wifi access to the general matrix.

Then you're damn glad your programs are stored locally on your commlink, and aren't hosted somewhere out there on the matrix.

Runners get themselves in too many loss-of-access situations too frequently to assume that commlinks are nothing but a thin client and the programs are hosted elsewhere, when there's no direct mention of that in the book.