What parts of cracking (tampering with the copyrighted software) are actually illegal? I would like to know whether software cracking is considered illegal broadly (in the way that drugs are, for example, broadly illegal in many western countries), or is it a more complex question. I am most interested in legal state in western countries. For example, suppose I'm cracking software (games) as a hobby. but I never actually &quot;consume&quot; these games - I never play them after they're successfully cracked. Furthermore, I never distribute the modified software (or the patch), and keep everything archived (suppose its also encrypted), just as a learning diary. Suppose then, that an officer gets access to my storage (for example, I cross the border and officers want to clone my storage space), and realizes its packed with projects in progress and a suspicious encrypted archive. Obviously, not wanting to be detained forever, I provide the secret key and it shows that the archive is full of successful cracks. Would I immediately be criminally charged just for posession - or would the prosecutors have to prove ill intent first? The reason for this question arises from my understanding, that software tampering is a part of the &quot;copyright&quot; law; therefore, I'd presume that as long as I do not make a copy - all changes of the software that executes locally on my hardware, should be perfectly legal? (Sorry on improper legal lingo - not my profession.)
It is not correct to say that drugs are, for example, broadly illegal in many western countries Some specific drugs, or specific categories of drugs, are illegal in certain circumstances, by specific statutes. Which ones vary by jurisdiction. So the analogy breaks down. As for the main question, if by &quot;software cracking&quot; is meant creating a modified version of the software that operates differently, for example by-passes authentication, or allows unlimited &quot;lives&quot;, that would most probably be creatign a derivative work of the software. Creating a derivative work, even if it is never distributed, is copyright infringement under US law: 17 USC 106 (2) lists as one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder the right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; This also covers the right to authorize preparation such works. So merely creating a &quot;cracked&quot; version of the software is technically infringement. However, infringement (of this sort) is not a crime, and no border officer or other government official will care about it in the slightest. It is up to the copyright owner to take legal action, normally by filing suit. If the modified software is never distributed nor advertised, it seems unlikely that the owner will ever even learn of it, and less likely that the owner will sue if s/he does learn of it. Damages in such a case, if the owner brought one, would probably be small, indeed not enough to make it worth the owner's time and trouble. If the cracker starts with an instance of the unmodified original software,m and edits it in place, never making a new copy, s/he is still preparing a derivative work, and (unless permission was obtained, or the work constitutes a fair use) it is still, copyright infringement If the modified software were posted online, the owner could send a takedown notice to the hosting site. If it were being sold, then a suit would be more likely. If what the cracker creates is not a modified version of the software, but instructions for modifying it, it is less clear that that would even be infringement. If the instructions are for evading an access control mechanism, that might be unlawful under 17 USC 1201 the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. But again it would be up to the owner to take legal action, the government will not care until and unless the owner takes action. (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The above answer is specific to the united-states but on this point the laws of other North American and European countries are, i believe, similar, as is the Berne Copyright Convention, at least on the matter of derivative works.
The relevant law in England and Wales is the Protection of Children Act 1978. Under section 1 of the Act, it’s a defense to distributing, showing, or possessing indecent images of children if you had a “legitimate reason” to distribute, show, or possess them. It’s also a defense if you had not seen the images, didn’t know they were indecent, and didn’t have any cause to suspect they were indecent. However, the 1999 case of R v. Bowden held that downloading a digital copy of an image counts as “making” an image. This is not subject to the “legitimate reason” defense by statute (although I don’t know if it’d count as “making” if you have no reason to know the contents, like if a computer repair shop backs up a customer’s hard drive without looking at what’s on the drive). However, it is explicitly still subject to defenses in sections 1A and 1B of the Act. 1A covers spouses and partners. If you are the spouse or partner of a child between 16 and 18, then with their consent you can legally make indecent images of them (although this doesn’t apply if anyone but the two of you is in the image). You can also possess those images with their consent and give them a copy. Section 1B covers criminal proceedings, investigations, etc., and was added after R v. Bowden. Because copying a digital image counts as “making” an image, it would generally be illegal for people to work with digital copies of indecent images even if done for a good reason. To avoid that, Parliament made an exception for making an indecent image when necessary to prevent, detect, or investigate crimes, as well as for criminal proceedings anywhere in the world. Parliament also exempted the UK’s intelligence agencies (MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) when carrying out their duties. These are specific statutory exemptions, so they can’t really be generalized to “if you have a legitimate reason.”
To answer this based on contract law, one would have to know where the company is located, where you are located, and what the terms of use specify regarding jurisdiction and possible mandatory arbitration. Next, you write that you have &quot;all the proof&quot; that your account was &quot;broken into.&quot; Proof in a legal sense? I think you would be writing things differently if you had as court judgement in this regard. And how did it happen? In my experience, there are several scenarios: You were tricked into revealing your credentials, or your own computer was compromised to gain your credentials, or you re-used the same credentials on different systems and one of those was compromised. The most likely scenario by far. There was a security breach on the site of the game company, either revealing your credentials or allowing direct access. There was an accidental software bug on the site of the game company which affected your inventory. There was a deliberate software change on the site of the game company which affected your inventory, e.g. to improve play balance. The latter three options are all possible, but the first option happens much more frequently. And from the viewpoint of the company, this is indistinguishable from you acting foolishly and losing it. The thief would have been acting with your credentials, after all. And that is where the term you quote comes in. The company is in a contractual relationship with their customers, so they cannot disclaim all responsibility for everything that happens through their terms of service. In some jurisdictions, sneaking an illegal clause into the boilerplate terms of service weakens the legal force of the whole document, so they make this sort of disclaimer. But if lost things could be restored too easily, the thrill would go out of ownership.
The website owner brings in an expert programmer who testifies that the user cannot have gotten to a certain part of the site (or download, etc.) without having clicked to accept the terms of service, and that this document they're holding is a true and correct copy of the terms of service as of that date. That's evidence in favor of the site, and an adverse party has to have stronger evidence in order to overcome it. If the person didn't save a copy of the terms themselves, they'll have a hard time on this. Then the other party's attorney tries to discredit the programmer by asking questions like "how do you know there are no bugs in the software which could have allowed somebody to reach this without agreeing to the terms of service" etc. Apparently, some sites don't require users to click indicating agreement. If the company has significantly changed the site, terms of service, etc. since the time the user registered, and doesn't keep any copies of old versions around, and admits this, they'll have a hard time enforcing an agreement (as they can't produce a copy of it). If the user kept a copy, the user might be able to present that. It's up to the finder of fact to decide what to believe and how much weight to give the various witnesses' testimony.
Patents are not that relevant in this case. Software patents are unenforceable in most parts of the world anyway. What matters here is copyright. Every work contract has a clause that everything an employee creates as part of their employment is copyrighted by the company. So using company-owned code to build an own project would be a copyright violation. There are also other legal tools in some jurisdiction which can be used against employees trying to misuse intellectual company property. But that's a topic for Law Stackexchange. Also, this isn't really related to a BYOD policy. Being able to bring your own device to work and then back home might make data theft more convenient, but isn't required. There are many other ways to steal sourcecode, like USB drives or uploading them to the internet. To prevent the first you would have to design your software development offices like a supermax prison facility with meter-high walls (so nobody can throw a device over it) and strip searches on everyone leaving the building. This is neither feasible nor reasonable for anything below matters of national security. To prevent the second, you would have to completely prevent internet access from developer workstations, which would greatly impede the productivity of any software developer. So most companies do not even try to physically prevent employees from stealing sourcecode. They rather rely on the legal safeguards and on maintaining a mutual trust relationship with their employees. It might seem counter-intuitive to some, but when you do not treat your employees like potential criminals they are in fact less likely to betray you.
Unauthorized use of a computer is illegal in most of the United States, and in many circumstances it is a federal crime. Here's a round-up of applicable laws from the National Conference of State Legislatures.
No, it is not. Just as it is illegal to steal from a thief, it is illegal to hack a hacker. Criminals are often considered a good target for crimes from a practical standpoint, but crimes against criminals are still prosecuted. As criminals are unlikely to report crimes against them to the authorities (particularly when doing so runs the risk of them being arrested for their crimes), targeting them does tend to result in a lower risk of being caught by the authorities, but if the crime is discovered, it will generally be prosecuted all the same. To that point, two Florida men have recently been arrested and are being prosecuted for stealing millions of dollars in Bitcoins from an illegal, darkweb drug marketplace in 2013, and there is always the more famous case of the two government agents who are in jail for stealing from the Silk Road. In your specific example, if all you did was hand over the information to the FBI, it's less likely that you'd be prosecuted than if you did so for personal gain, but you would be at risk of prosecution for engaging in vigilante computer hacking, yes. Also consider that if your actions happened to interfere with an ongoing investigation or result in the inability to prosecute (say, for the evidence you gathered being tainted and inadmissible by your involvement), you could be charged with crimes such as obstruction of justice or interfering with a police investigation as well.
No, it's still copyright infringement. When you modify a copyrighted work in any way, you generate a derivative work which you are not allowed to distribute without the permission of the original copyright holder.