Education, Software Piracy, and the Law Essay

AbstractThis paper is intended as a primer for copyright law in
the form of a short story. An elementary school teacher illegitimately
copies a piece of software for educational purposes and is discovered.

Issues such as the fair use doctrine, copyright law, and cyberlaw are
covered. The analytical section provides a realistic legal defense for the
fictional situation that drives the paper.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Education, Software Piracy, and the Law
specifically for you for only $13.9/page
Order now


My name is ___ and I teach 6th grade mathematics at Hightstown Middle
School in Hightstown, New Jersey. I can’t say I particularly enjoy my job,
but I still give it my best. I do enjoy spending time with my students, and
any occasion when we can all laugh together is a good one. Most students
who pass through school here will go on to work at low-income jobs for the
rest of their lives. The few students who do seem to have potential for a
bright future rarely achieve one.


About five years ago, our school received a number of outdated computers
and a small grant to install Internet access from the nearby Armand Hammer
Corporation. We converted a classroom downstairs into our first-ever
computer laboratory, and the kids couldn’t get enough. Very few of them had
used a computer before, and of those, few actually owned one. Even today, a
lot of kids know what a computer is but lack basic knowledge about its use.

Six months ago, one of our outstanding students, Jake Meyers, told me that
he wanted to make websites for a living. I was enamored, and decided to
help him as best as I could.


We spent our after school hours for the next month learning HTML together.

Jake’s first website was about Pokemon cards, one of his many passions.

Jake and I made a page for each of his favorite characters, found pictures
of them on the Internet, and posted the site to a free server. His next
idea was to create original pictures depicting battles between the Pokemon,
but because our district could not afford any drawing software, we were
unable to do it. When Jake began to feel discouraged, I resolved to get my
hands on a professional quality program. My wife, who is a secretary at an
advertising firm, was able to get a copy of Adobe Illustrator for me. I
installed the program on one of the lab computers, and Jake and I once
again spent hours designing his imaginary Pokemon haven.


Unfortunately, the action came back to haunt me when one of my colleagues,
Maureen Shea, dropped in on one of our sessions about two months ago. She
asked if the school had finally allocated enough money to start upgrading
the lab. I responded that no, I had borrowed the software from my wife and
installed it on one computer. I didn’t think much of telling Maureen, but
she took the event more seriously than I imagined. As part of the hiring
process, teachers are required to report any legal transgressions they
observe. If the event had been ignored, Maureen was equally liable for the
infraction. Acting on this fear, she reported the illegitimate software to
the School Board.


Within a week, I received a letter requesting a period of voluntary leave
while the Board could investigate. In my initial testimony before the seven
members, I related the exact story recounted here. Though they did not
disagree with my actions from a practical standpoint, they asked me to
prepare a legal defense. Apparently, they were legally bound to report the
incident to Adobe, and I was to research copyright law for a possible
hearing with the company. All of a sudden, I had a new project to work on.

I spent most of my days in front of a computer in the basement after school
hours. As for Jake, I only saw him once over the next two weeks; it seemed
like I had let him down. There was nothing I could do, because I could not
help him without first helping myself.


After only a few minutes of research, it was apparent that much of the case
would focus on the Fair Use Doctrine, passed in 19765 as part of a major
revision to copyright law. At that time, technological advances prompted
Congress to revise standards dating from 19091. Basically, the Fair Use
Doctrine provided four criteria by which a copyright infringement case is
decided: purpose in copying the work, the nature of the original work, the
amount of the original work that was copied, and effect on the potential
market9. Several extensions to the doctrine were passed to help clarify
rulings for specific cases, like provisions for certain media and
organizations, but most did not seem relevant to my case. Regardless, it
was clear that if I could prove “fair use” then I would be exonerated.


I glanced through a few cases online that seemed relevant to my situation,
and in each, the defendant argued that the particular circumstances
constituted fair use. Interestingly, I could find no legal precedent for my
actions. Wherever I looked, all that experts had to say was that fair use
was determined on a case-by-case basis. The regulations that guide the
judge’s decision are only a rough outline of what factors should be
considered in a case. For example, there is no formula to determine when
the “amount or substantiality” clause is violated. Although I was
frustrated by the lack of historical precedent involving software copyright
violations, I knew that even those cases which did not relate to me
directly would still hold in principle before a judge.


Evidently, there had been a fair amount of debate concerning whether
software falls under copyright or patent laws. The current reasoning is
thus: a program is one way of expressing an idea and is therefore a
creative work. A patent can apply to a process while a copyright applies to
“original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”8.

Clearly, one could not patent or copyright the type of software (i.e. virus
protection, word processor, etc.). However, the exact coding for a program
is without question a creative work and therefore subject to copyright.

Software that is part of a process, such as operating hardware, is
patentable. In my case, I was dealing with software copyright law because
by no means had I violated a Photoshop patent.


I investigated the actual U.S. law concerning software copyrights. There
was a small section relevant to fair use of software12 that clarified fair
use in three situations. The first provision allowed copies to be made if
either essential to operating the software in a legal manner, or to make an
archival copy. Secondly, software could only be transferred with the
permission of the copyright owner. The third allowed copies for repair and
maintenance reasons, like backing up software installed on a hard drive
while the original was purged. Unfortunately, none of the provisions for
software would excuse my actions.


I only managed to find one case that in some way applied to my situation.

The first involved a repair company that had activated a piece of software
as part of the diagnostic process. The software company argued that by
activating the program, which the repair company had not paid for, the
software was used without paying for the rights to do so7. The court ruled
in favor of the repair company, which was personally encouraging because it
showed that in some situations at least, the courts were able to forgive
blatant violations of copyright law if done so for practical reasons.

Otherwise, it appeared I was heading into uncharted legal waters until I
realized that there was a great deal of leniency where education was
concerned.


The idea of a copyright in general is to allow authors of creative works
control over how their product is used. However, when a work is to be used
for research or educational reasons, allowances are made11. This is because
legislators felt that nothing should prevent individuals from academic
advancement, as it is beneficial to society as a whole. Therefore, usage
within an educational institution is usually allowed unless there is
significant economic damage. In fact, education is specifically mentioned
in the four-part test for fair use10. Since I am a teacher, and I was using
the software for instructional purposes, I figured this could be my best
avenue for defense.


All of a sudden, I felt a little more confident about my case because
finally, there was some legal precedent for my actions. When an educational
company sued a teacher for creating entire copies of its television
programs4, the only reason that the teacher lost was because of significant
and consistent damage to the company’s economic market. In my case, I
created a single copy for educational purposes, which has already been
established as legitimate for other media6. Other cases2 have showed that
educators were generally only liable when actual economic damage occurs.


I decided that I could address each section of the fair use doctrine
separately to prove fair use. The first factor, purpose of copying, was
undeniably educational. By the letter of the law10, such use leans towards
legality. The website we had posted, the only use of the copied software,
was not for profit. Also, Maureen Shea, who knew a lot about our project,
could testify as to my purpose in copying the software. I was only
attempting to teach Jake how to create a web page.


The way in which copyright law applies to software (the nature of the
work) has previously been discussed. No laws or previous cases could
justify my actions on this count. I had copied a creative work in whole;
that was certain. However, no precedent had ever been set for such an
action in an educational environment.


The most damaging factor was relevant to the amount of work I copied.

Certainly, no one is denying that I copied the entire piece of software.

But, there is no way I could use the program for educational purposes if I
hadn’t copied the entire program. I had no other choice but then to copy
all of it, so perhaps the court would excuse my actions.


What gave me the most hope was the fact that there was no loss of a market
for Adobe. Neither Jake nor I could have afforded to pay for a $400 piece
of software. If the school were to buy the program, it would disregard the
single copy anyways, and install fresh on all of the computers. In fact, I
may have potentially increased the market – after experiencing the
software, either Jake or I could conceivably purchase the software.


Finally, a week ago, we were contacted by Adobe. In an official letter from
their legal department, they asked that the software be deleted from the
laboratory immediately. They also expressed no desire to press charges
because of a “lack of substantial damage to the company”, and the school
board accordingly dropped its investigation. Evidently, the legal fees
required to pursue small-time offenders would outweigh any reparations ever
ordered. I am again able to spend time with Jake, who has decided not to
pursue his Pokemon battles for the time being.


1. Association of Research Libraries (2001). Timeline: A History of
Copyright in the U.S.

Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the WWW:
http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
2.Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., 758 F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y.

1991)
3. D’Amico M (1995). Fair Use Free Takings
Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the WWW:
http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/MAD/mwfairuse.htm
4. Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks, 542 F.Supp. 1156
(W.D.N.Y. 1982)
5. Maricopa Community College (1997). Copyright Restrictions and the Fair
Use Doctrine.

Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the WWW:
http://www.dist.maricopa.edu/legal/fairuse.html
6. NoLo – Law for All (2001). Grading Teachers on Copyright Law —
Videotaping for the Classroom.

Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the WWW:
http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/tc/nn72.html?r=00150047303202000
7. Stim R (2001). Copyright Law Changes That May Affect You
Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the WWW:
http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/tc/legislation98.html
8. United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 102. Subject matter of
copyright: In general
9. United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in
copyrighted works
10. United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. Limitations on
exclusive rights: Fair use
11. United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 110. Limitations on
exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
12. United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 117. Limitations on
exclusive rights: Computer programs
13. University of Texas (1999). Permissible Copying of Software
Retrieved November 15, 2001 from the
WWW:http://www3.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/mono2.htm

Haven’t Found A Paper?

Let us create the best one for you! What is your topic?

By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Eric from Graduateway Hi there, would you like to get an essay? What is your topic? Let me help you

logo

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get your custom essay sample

For Only $13.90/page