Question

what sections of the code deal with using pirated / illegal software ?

Principle 5: Management

Software engineering managers and

leaders shall subscribe to and promote an

ethical approach to the management of

software development and maintenance.

In particular, those managing or leading

software engineers shall, as appropriate:

5.01. Ensure good management for any

project on which they work,

including effective procedures for

promotion of quality and reduc-

tion of risk.

5.02. Ensure that software engineers

are informed of standards before

being held to them.

5.03. Ensure that software engineers

know the employer’s policies and

procedures for protecting pass-

words, files, and information that

is confidential to the employer or

confidential to others.

5.04. Assign work only after taking into

account appropriate contribu-

tions of education and experience

tempered with a desire to further

that education and experience.

5.05. Ensure realistic quantitative esti-

mates of cost, scheduling, per-

sonnel, quality, and outcomes on

any project on which they work

or propose to work, and provide

an uncertainty assessment of

these estimates.

5.06. Attract potential software engi-

neers only by full and accurate

description of the conditions of

employment.

5.07. Offer fair and just remuneration.

5.08. Not unjustly prevent someone

from taking a position for which

that person is suitably qualified.

5.09. Ensure that there is a fair agree-

ment concerning ownership of

any software, processes, research,

writing, or other intellectual

property to which a software

engineer has contributed.

5.10. Provide for due process in hear-

ing charges of violation of an

employer’s policy or of this Code.

5.11. Not ask a software engineer to do

anything inconsistent with this

Code.

5.12. Not punish anyone for express-

ing ethical concerns about a pro-

ject.

Answer 1

The law applicable in these cases is of Copyright Act, 1957. Section 64 (amended in 1984) of the said Act gives power to the police officer of the rank of a sub-inspector and above, to seize without warrant all infringing copies of works “if he is satisfied” that an offence of infringement under section 63, “has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed”.

Before the amendment of 1984, this power could only be exercised by a police officer when a Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the matter. On the face of it, this is a very extensive and boundless power since the judiciary does not supervise it, and it simply depends on the “satisfaction” of the officer, which is very subjective and differs from case to case. To put matters in perspective, under the Income Tax Act, dealing with the far more sensitive issue of tax evasion, a search and seizure can only be conducted based on information already in the possession of the investigating authority. Thus, it can be said that, Article 64 gives arbitrary powers to police personnel, and mostly, they do not abide by Sections 51, 52 and 52A and Section 64(2) of the Copyright Act, which asks police not to act arbitrarily and the “satisfaction” be based on some material facts and not some absurd propositions.