Would company A be legally liable if a hack is developed by a third party to run company B&#39;s software on A&#39;s hardware? So let's assume there are 2 console companies: Company A and company B. Let's say that company A creates the gamesystem X and company B creates the playingmachine 5. Both companies have proprietary software on their machines, and both companies have games exclusive to their own machines. Let's say a third party, let's call it hackerman, makes a hack for the gamesystem X that allows him to natively run playmachine 5 games on the gamesystem X without actually circumventing the DRM software on the playmachine 5 games. For the sake of the argument, let's assume this is a hardware hack (for example connecting a new piece of hardware that hackerman created himself) and not a manipulation of the software on gamesystem X. Also let's assume that it is literally impossible to patch out this flaw either as a firmware update on the gamesystem X or as security patches on playingmachine 5 games, such that it would take a whole redesign of the hardware architecture by company A to remove the flaw on the gamesystem X. Now the question is: would company A be liable for this? Because the repercussions would be that if people knew that there's an underground hack they can do to run both system games on just one system, company B would lose out on sales of playingmachine 5. In this case, it COULD also be that company A intentionally made it that way to be able to be hardware hacked in that way, but let's assume that there's definitely no way to prove that accusation. Also let's assume that hackerman is unidentifiable, the hardware hack is easy and cheap to do (such that even non technical people can easily pull it off) and information and guides on how to do it are either spread through the dark web (so untraceable) and word of mouth.
No Company A is liable for its own acts and omissions and no one else’s.
it would violate law? It would be very dependent of what your jurisdiction is and what the software does. I would expect most software that would be lawful to install at your home would be lawful to install at your company, but there may be exceptions. To put an hyperbolic example, if you work at the CIA and you install some remote access software that allows you to access your workstation from a non-secure PC through non-secure methods, I am pretty sure that would be illegal, even if you had the best of intentions. A recent scenario taken from real life involves some members an organization who are required to use official e-mail servers for FOIA purposes setting up their own private mail servers. Of course, YMMV. can I purchase it for myself, and then use at workplace Even if the software is legal it does not mean that it is ok to use it at the workplace. Most business have rules about what software may be installed in the PCs, who may install it and how to manage it. Your software could introduce security vulnerabilities that your IT team may need to be aware of, or incompatibilities with other software. It may introduce legal liabilities (you install a "home edition" licence in a corporate environment where that licence is invalid). Your company may discipline you if you breaking those guidelines and install software without authorization, even if there is no harm for them for this action. On top of that, if your actions cause some damage to the company, it can sue you to get you to pay for those damages. Before taking any action you should inquiry about your company's IT policy and, if your company does not have one or if the policy is not clear about allowing you to install the software, ask the people in charge (preferably in writting).
Addressing the question of programmer liability, generally speaking, a person who creates something that others use to infringe on copyright is not liable is liable if there are non-infringing uses for the thing (Sony). They can be liable if they intentionally contribute to infringement, viz Grokster one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. End-user liability is different. In order to legally download (watch) anything, you have to have permission from the rights-holder, and from the site operator. The site operator will have terms of service according to which you can access material: if you violate those terms, you are infringing on copyright (you didn't do what the permission to copy required of you). If the site-owner knowingly distributes material without permission, he is an infringer and you have no legal license to copy (watch) that content, so you too are an infringer. If the site-owner unknowingly distributed material without permission and generally complies with the DMCA safe harbor requirements, he is not an infringer but you the user are. Congress has not created an innocent-infringement defense where you can defend yourself against an accusation of infringement by proving that you didn't know that the material was distributed without permission (there is an option to reduce liability for statutory damages to $200 in case of unknowing infringement, but not make all liability go away).
What are exactly the legal consequences of "All rights reserved"? Almost none. You have to explicitly grant copyright rights. You don't even need the Copyright notice for them to apply. My "almost" is because the notice makes it harder for somebody to argue "they didn't realize". Do I still need an additional SW License Agreement or is the Copyright notice above + a Disclaimer of liability sufficient? If this is free software (I know you said it isn't), do yourself (and everyone else) a favour by picking a license you like. Preferably either GPL or MIT (depending on your taste). There are far too many free licenses already. Please don't add another. (It also makes it much easier for any user of your software: "Oh yeah, GPL v2. We understand that. We can use it." as opposed to "What are the implications of using this one??" As this is not free software, I think you need a paid-for lawyer (who understands IPR in your juridiction.) Edit: In principle, I believe you don't need anything. The code is copyright, so the customer can't do anything with it (without explicit permissions that you haven't granted). However if the customer doesn't realize that or thinks you won't mind, you then have to go to court to enforce your rights (and probably end up with a disgruntled customer). A short, clear, license will make it clear to the customer what they are allowed to do, and save all that aggravation.
Yes, it is legal to do that More exactly, it is not copyright infringement. Reverse engineering has been found to be a fair use under US copyright law in: Sega Enterprises v. Accolade 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).; and Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In general pure reverse engineering is fair use when the reuser has not agreed to a contract limiting reverse engineering and has not obtained a copy through deception. But a file format is considered to be an idea or a method of operation, and so is not protected by copyright at all, and nothing that is done with it could ever be copyright infringement. See https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/3269d4f3-8b39-4a2c-8205-1a55e0c6774d/are-file-types-copyrighted?forum=Vsexpressvcs and &quot;Does copyright protect data file formats?&quot; from Lexology, the latter citing EU law and the case of SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Thus there is no copyright infringement in reverse engineering a file format, or in then writing and distributing code to read, write, or, modify files in such a format. If a valid patent applies, that may prevent creating or using such software without a license from the patent holder. But my understanding is that in most cases a file format will not be subject to a patent.
As a baseline, you may assume that your code will be used legally. It sounds like this still applies in your case: there is an entirely reasonable and legal use for login code, so you had no reason to assume that there might be a problem. This puts you legally in the clear. To be liable, you'd need to know or at least reasonably suspect that your code would be used to violate the law.
The party providing the computer, ISp connecting the computer to the internet, or manufacturer of the computer would not be liable. A person wishing to sue for damages would have to establish that the defendant was negligent in their action. The underlying premise is that all parties have some obligation to all other parties to care, to some extent. The inquiry ask haw a reasonable prudent person would behave in this context when pursuing their goals to avoid harming others. A reasonably prudent person would not provide a rack of sharp carving knives on the floor of a daycare center. A reasonably prudent person would provide a rack of sharp carving knives on a work-table at a fish-cleaning business. In both cases, it is possible that a person might cut themselves. In the daycare center, the toddlers on the floor are not assumed to share any of the burden of care, in the fish-store, the employees are assumed to share some of the burden of care. The ISP knows that it is possible that a person will harm themselves when they surf the web, but that does not make them liable for damages when an irresponsible party deliberately and knowingly connects to a nest of viruses, likewise the computer maker. The alternative is that providing an internet connection always makes you liable, or building a computer: that would be the end of SE. Two parties can significantly and reasonably mitigate the risk: the bank, and the customer. The customer can either decline to use this unsafe computer, or they can take precautions, in particular remembering to log out. The bank can also do certain things without harming their interest: providing ample warnings (which they do), or automatically logging a customer out after a period of inactivity (a metric of the fact that the customer just up and left). Banks do that too. The only control that could be reasonably be expected from the company, short of simply not providing a computer in the break room, would be filtering to prevent any access to certain kinds of web sites, such as porn sites, banks, or SE. Filtering for the first type of site is overall consistent with reasonable company objectives (which is to accommodate reasonable employee interests in accessing or transmitting information during the work day). Given the reasonable goals of the company, the jury would not likely find that the company had breached their duty to the employee. The jury balances these interests of the parties, and would determine that the company could not be expected to filter out connection requests to banks, and that they can reasonably rely on prudent actions by the employee and bank to prevent whatever happened.
Check your license! By operating the original client, you might have agreed to a license, the EULA. Check that license for what it says about you being allowed to do with the product. In a recent case of Bungie vs. Elite Boss Tech, a US court found in a default judgment that a certain cheat software that would interact with both the game's client and the company's servers among other things did... constitute copyright infringement [as a derivative work] was a breach of contract [formed by the EULA and agreeing to the Terms of Service for the game] was interference with Contractual allegations [of other users that obtained the software] However, not all internet games or experiences are locked down like that. Other companies do offer an open API set or terms under which a client's software may be modified. As a very generous example, LindenLabs does for its SecondLife Virtual World, for which they provide not just the framework, but also the terms under which you are allowed to make a third party Viewer Sometimes, the Terms of service are rather hidden. For example, the Chinese Go platform Fox Weiqi operates in china. To get to the terms of service, you need to download the free client, go to Settings (via the cog), then choose 野狐围棋用户协议, which is Chinese for Wild Fox Go User Agreement. This links to https://edu.foxwq.com/complex/useragreement.html. The user agreement is of course in Chinese, but Google Translate manages to get that to English. It contains the following clause: 7.2 Unless permitted by law or with the written permission of Yehu, you shall not engage in the following acts during the use of this software: ( 1 ) Delete the copyright information on the software and its copies; ( 2 ) Reverse engineer, reverse assemble, reverse compile the software, or try to find the source code of the software in other ways; ( 6 ) Log in or use Yehu Go and its services through third-party software, plug-ins, plug-ins, systems not authorized by Yehu, or make, publish, and disseminate the above tools; ( 7 ) Interfering with the software and its components, modules, and data by itself or authorizing others or third-party software While it takes a court to see if the terms hold water and are actually enforceable because of how the EULA is offered, the face value of those clauses is, that it is forbidden unless you have a specific law that allows such or you obtain written permission. With that kind of possible liability that might cost millions, there might be serious legal problems. Read your license agreement and terms of service and consult a lawyer.