The Sale of Goods Act only applies to the contract that exists between a trader and a consumer. Real life is far more complex than that. For example, if parents buy a PC for their teenage child, one parent (the one who goes into the shop) owns the PC (or jointly of they buy it on HP), ownership is then passed onto the teenager when the gift is made. If the parents employ a forensic expert to look at the computer as they are concerned about web activity, do they have a right to do this? And is the forensic expert risking breaking the law if they do not seek permission from the teenager before accessing the PC?
The Sale of Goods Act only applies to the contract that exists between a trader and a consumer. Real life is far more complex than that. For example, if parents buy a PC for their teenage child, one parent (the one who goes into the shop) owns the PC (or jointly of they buy it on HP), ownership is then passed onto the teenager when the gift is made. If the parents employ a forensic expert to look at the computer as they are concerned about web activity, do they have a right to do this? And is the forensic expert risking breaking the law if they do not seek permission from the teenager before accessing the PC?
I was trying to answer his original question about ownership and licensing of hardware and software. The 'Sale of Goods AND SERVICES' Act (Not th Sale of Goods Act) goes into great details as to who owns what, and what rights each have to access/modify any software/firmware stored thereon. But it irrelevant in computer crime cases as law enforcement requirements trump it all anyway.
Not sure I buy into your example given above. What is the difference between that and a wife asking someone to look at her husband's computer? The only legal requirement is that someone has granted proper access. If the child is under the age of 18 the parents are still responsible for the child's actions.
Is not the point more along these lines I seize a computer using either a warrant or a Civil Search Order (Anton Pillar Order). I then take a forensic image of the hard disk. At this point I have a copy of all the software on the original computer. Do these copies infringe? I then mount the forensic image in e.g. VmWare and run the software. Does this use infringe - it's sure outside the license? Then I think that one of the dlls is behaving in a strange manner so I examine it by reverse engineering, does this infringe?
Is not the point more along these lines I seize a computer using either a warrant or a Civil Search Order (Anton Pillar Order). I then take a forensic image of the hard disk. At this point I have a copy of all the software on the original computer. Do these copies infringe? I then mount the forensic image in e.g. VmWare and run the software. Does this use infringe - it's sure outside the license? Then I think that one of the dlls is behaving in a strange manner so I examine it by reverse engineering, does this infringe?
It would be interesting to see if anyone had the guts to challenge this. If they were successful can you imagine the number of people that would all simultaneously appeal against their convictions?
Surely permission to do such things are given by the government of the country in which you live.
Is not the point more along these lines I seize a computer using either a warrant or a Civil Search Order (Anton Pillar Order). I then take a forensic image of the hard disk. At this point I have a copy of all the software on the original computer. Do these copies infringe? I then mount the forensic image in e.g. VmWare and run the software. Does this use infringe - it's sure outside the license? Then I think that one of the dlls is behaving in a strange manner so I examine it by reverse engineering, does this infringe?
Interesting. I think that comes the closest to what I am getting at.
It would be interesting to see if anyone had the guts to challenge this. If they were successful can you imagine the number of people that would all simultaneously appeal against their convictions?
Surely permission to do such things are given by the government of the country in which you live.
This would indeed be a dangerous precendent to be set should a challenge ever be successful. I wonder if there are any cases where it has been tested, if unsuccessful.
Another part of this is how much power should a government have? How much more power should law enforcment agencies be allowed to have in order to do their work effectively? Is the current warrent system enough of a safe guard or should they be allowed to go further and not have any permission except a hunch?
In the UK police are already allowed to do so. Although the burdon of evidence is still high.
There is no way that anyone would make such a judgement, let alone sustain it. That would be like saying that personal contracts between parties would have to be given first priority over the criminal investigations - there is no chance of this happening whatsoever, and I would whole-heartedly agree with that decision.
Issues about how much power should a government wield depends on who you ask, and I'm not entirely sure this is the most appropriate venue for such a discussion.
Is not the point more along these lines I seize a computer using either a warrant or a Civil Search Order (Anton Pillar Order). I then take a forensic image of the hard disk. At this point I have a copy of all the software on the original computer. Do these copies infringe?
In the US, due to the weirdness in software copyright law, this would be an infringement, which is a civil matter (even a copy present in RAM has been considered an infringement though, thankfully, the courts are coming around to a better technical understanding).
However, the infringement does not apply to the licensee but to the licensor so I don't see how that would affect the device as evidence. Also, in order to make the case, the licensor would have to show damages from the infringement (not the licensee).
I then mount the forensic image in e.g. VmWare and run the software. Does this use infringe - it's sure outside the license? Then I think that one of the dlls is behaving in a strange manner so I examine it by reverse engineering, does this infringe?
Same argument. But also remember that copyright law is (as are most civil laws) not intended to prevent a specific action (copying) but rather, it is intended to prevent the owner from suffering financial loss as a result of the action. If there is no loss, there is no actionable event.
There is, I think, no real implications for criminal law nor for the seizure and examination of a computer in a civil proceeding as long as the licensor is not denied fair compensation.
Under the Canadian Criminal Code (section 487)
"A person authorized under this section to search a computer system in a building or place for data may
(a) use or cause to be used any computer system at the building or place to search any data contained in or available to the computer system;"
so at least on site, the criminal code would allow a police officer to use any software found on site. Whether they could transport any software (or an image of it) found on site to another location and use it there would be an interesting question. My guess is the answer would be yes as long as the definition of computer system is broad enough.
As for reverse engineering proprietary software I'll have to ask one of the lawyers around here (although they usually say something non-committal to questions like that.)