Question

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

Principle 6: Profession

Software engineers shall advance the

integrity and reputation of the profession

consistent with the public interest. In par-

ticular, software engineers shall, as

appropriate:

6.01. Help

develop an organizational

environment favorable to acting

ethically.

6.02. Pr

omote public knowledge of

software engineering.

6.03. Extend software

engineering

knowledge by appropriate par-

ticipation in professional organi-

zations, meetings, and publica-

tions.

6.04. Support, as members of a profes-

sion, other software engineers

striving to follow this Code.

6.05. Not pr

omote their own interest at

the expense of the profession,

client, or employer.

6.06.

Obey all laws governing their

work, unless, in exceptional cir-

cumstances, such compliance is

inconsistent with the public inter-

est.

6.07. Be accurate in stating the charac-

teristics of software on which

they work, avoiding not only false

claims but also claims that might

reasonably be supposed to be

speculative, vacuous, deceptive,

misleading, or doubtful.

6.08. Take responsibility for detecting,

correcting, and reporting errors

in software and associated docu-

ments on which they work.

6.09. Ensure that clien

ts, employers,

and supervisors know of the soft-

ware engineer’s commitment to

this Code of Ethics, and the sub-

sequent ramifications of such

commitment.

6.10. A

void associations with busi-

nesses and organizations which

are in conflict with this Code.

6.11. Recognize that violations of this

Code are inconsistent with being

a professional software engineer.

6.12.

Express concerns to the people

involved when significant viola-

tions of this Code are detected

unless this is impossible, counter-

productive, or dangerous.

6.13. Report signifi

cant violations of

this Code to appropriate author-

ities when it is clear that consul-

tation with people involved in

these significant violations is

impossible, counterproductive, or

dangerous.

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.