1

In this Academia question comments reads :

cracked software has hard-to-detect anti-features bug (example cracked version of a engineering software may use in computations slight less material resistance, so that buildings created with it have a greater cost, or just more material resistance so that buildings you create with it just implodes because computations are wrong

My question is: If a building collapses and the root cause is an intentional math error by unlicensed software can the software maker be charged with something?

I'm also interested if the builder could use this as a defense.

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    If you are the software maker, then you should assume that you can be charged, that you will be charged if people die, and that it is quite possible you lose in court (and even if the law supports you, doesn't mean you cant lose). Don't do it.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Nov 15, 2016 at 22:14
  • Computer programs cannot cause intentional errors, because they don't have intentions. People can create software that intentionally generates wrong answers. Who created this feature of the software: the original author, or the cracker? The cracker can be charged with something; the user probably can (if he knows it is pirated); the original maker could be, if he intentionally introduced the error.
    – user6726
    Commented Nov 16, 2016 at 0:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I think this is a lot like this question Liability for poisoning food one expects to be stolen because you are causing harm to someone/something when they are using your things without permission.

That question says that if you expect someone to do something with something that you have purposely made wrong then you are legally responsible for the effects.

Improve this answer
2
  • Very similar. However comments on the accepted answer suggest "Conspicuously disclosing the nature of the danger in a way that a reasonable person would expect all foreseeable viewers to take seriously would seem sufficient to me." A EULA might pass that test.
    – user4460
    Commented Nov 16, 2016 at 15:46
  • "A EULA might pass that test." - No way, not in this scenario. How many people would you expect to actually read the EULA - out of those using cracked software? There's no guarantee an EULA would even be included in a cracked version, and that's especially true if you make the warning conspicuous/annoying enough to notice.
    – D M
    Commented Jan 31, 2018 at 18:16
1

Contrary to what is said in one of the comments, including a disclaimer or a clause in the EULA to the effect that "this program will crash buildings if used unlicensed" will not help in defending its author; more likely, it will contribute to establish their culpability. If, however, the programmer does include such functionality (the program producing wrong results unless properly licensed) but keeps that to themselves, then there's no realistic way in which they could be held liable, since they could always argue, plausibly, that the errors resulted from the program being used in an adulterated form (which necessarily results from using a cracked version). That is, the author would argue that the cracked version of the program is not their program anymore.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    That argument reminds me of the argument from the guy that said he was going to walk around randomly waving his fists and if someone got in the way he would not be culpable.
    – IKnowNothing
    Commented Jun 12, 2020 at 13:36

You must log in to answer this question.