Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor From: taylor@hplabs.HP.COM (Dave Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Parental Responsibility and Software Piracy Message-ID: <1210@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> Date: 14 Dec 87 18:46:11 GMT Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Software Technology Lab Lines: 48 Approved: taylor@hplabs [This note is based on an article in an HP Users Group publication] Can Parents be Held Legally Responsible for Acts of Software Piracy By Their Teenage Children? Jonathan D. Wallace, Esq. a computer lawyer represnting the paintiff in Weaver v. Doe, a case pending in federal court in New York, believes they can. Weaver, the plaintiff, owns the copyright of ``Cards'', a commercially distributed card-playing simulation for the Atari ST computer. The teenage defendant allegedly operated a pirate bulletin board system from which users could download ``Cards'' and other copyrighted programs. Although software companies have sued software pirates before, this is the first case of which Wallace is aware in which the parate's parents have also been sued. According to Wallace, the case raises a question of first impression under the copyright law. ``Our argument is that a parent who supplies the computer equipment and telephone line which is used to operate a pirate bulletin board, and who then tolerates the trading of pirated software, contributes to the copyright infringement,'' Wallace said. ``Since teenagers usually have no assets with which to pay a judgement, holding the parents responsible will give a strong incentive to families not to condone this type of behaviour.'' [My thoughts on this: First off, it implies knowledge and awareness of the childs activity on the part of the parent, and I believe that most parents who allow their children to run a BBS (or indeed have a computer of their own) are either not aware of, or not interested in, the technologies involved. This will prove to be one of the cruxes of the ensuing legal battle, I would suspect, because this case seems a rather alarming extension of the so-called deep pockets legislation, where `rich companies' are viewed as a more appropriate target of litigation than poor ones. The interesting alternative is that Atari and other inexpensive home computer companies might find themselves in the position where they will have to convince parents that their children cannot run software that wasn't legally obtained (e.g. through some sort of software serial number tracking, or external `hardware lock' or some other mechanism), resulting in less software around (since it would also impede the distribution of free or shareware software, since more parents will be keeping track of the software the child has, and might not believe that unpurchased software is okay to own) and ultimately less sales of their computers. Any other thoughts? -- Dave Taylor]