1. Facts of the Case
An engineering college runs a computer laboratory for teaching programming, CAD/CAM and other technical subjects. Instead of purchasing licensed copies, the lab technicians have installed pirated (“cracked”) versions of several proprietary software packages on all machines. Students and faculty routinely use these copies for practical classes, assignments and research. No written permission has been obtained from the software owners, and no licence fees have been paid. A complaint is lodged by a former student with the local cyber‑crime cell alleging software piracy.
2. Issues in the Case
- Does installing and using pirated software constitute copyright infringement?
- Do the college and its management incur criminal as well as civil liability?
- Are there overlapping offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)?
- What penalties or remedies (injunctions, damages, fines, imprisonment) can a court impose?
3. Legal Principles Covered
| Statute / Provision | Key Elements | Relevance to the Facts |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright Act, 1957 | ||
| • § 51(a)(i) – Infringement by unauthorised reproduction or installation | Copying software or installing it without licence is infringement. | College reproduced and installed cracked copies. |
| • § 63 – Criminal offence of knowing infringement (mens rea) | Punishable with imprisonment 6 mths – 3 yrs and fine ₹50,000 – ₹2 lakh. | Lab staff/management knew the copies were unlicensed. |
| • § 63B – Possession of infringing copies for trade or business | Covers keeping pirated copies in the course of trade or business. | Providing lab services to fee‑paying students = “business.” |
| • § 55/58 – Civil remedies: injunctions, damages, delivery‑up | Rights‑holder can sue the college, seize media, claim damages. | Software vendors can initiate civil suit. |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | ||
| • § 65 – Tampering with computer source documents | Altering activation / licence files of software to bypass protection is an offence (≤3 yrs jail, ≤₹2 lakh fine). | Cracks/key‑gens typically modify source / object code. |
| • § 66 – Dishonest or fraudulent acts using computer resources | Using pirated software “dishonestly” to obtain benefit (saving licence cost) falls here (≤3 yrs jail, ≤₹5 lakh fine). | |
| • § 43(b),(j) – Unauthorised copying or causing damage; civil liability under § 43 | Vendors may seek compensation via Adjudicating Officer (up to ₹1 crore). |
Judicial and Administrative Guidance
- Microsoft Co. v. Ms. K. Mayuri (Delhi HC, 2007) – Raids on unlicensed software in a training institute; injunction and damages granted.
- Gramophone Co. v. Mars Recording (2000) – Knowledge of infringement is enough for criminal liability under § 63.
- Software End‑User Licence Agreements (EULAs) are recognized as contracts; violation constitutes breach plus statutory infringement.
Doctrine of Vicarious & Contributory Liability
College management, directors and the Head of Department can be held liable if:
- Infringement occurred with their consent or connivance (§ 69, Copyright Act).
- They neglected to exercise due diligence (§ 85, IT Act – corporate liability).
4. Possible Judgement / Outcome
- Criminal Prosecution:
- Court frames charges under § 63 & § 63B (Copyright Act) and § 65/§ 66 (IT Act).
- Lab‑in‑charge and principal could face up to three years’ imprisonment and cumulative fines.
- Civil Decree:
- Permanent injunction restraining the college from further use of unlicensed software.
- Damages or account of profits awarded to software owners; college ordered to surrender all infringing copies and hard‑disks.
- Corporate Penalty under IT Act:
- Adjudicating Officer may impose compensation up to ₹1 crore for loss suffered by right‑holders (§ 43 read with § 46).
- Compliance Orders:
- Court may direct the college to purchase genuine licences, submit to periodic audits, and display compliance certificates.
