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]