United States V. Lamacchia
United States v. Lamacchia
Overview of United States v. Lamacchia in relation to cyber crime: [1] An overview of the case and how it developed suggests that the government, by indicting David LaMacchia under the Wire Fraud Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, avoided the difficulty of proving that Mr. LaMacchia had the intent to personally profit from the scheme to defraud as required by the criminal copyright statute, 17 U.S.C.S. § 506 (a). However, that approach was not without risk. David LaMacchia filed a motion to dismiss citing two reasons. The first was that the bulletin board that he was operating was a free speech issue, and that he could no more be held accountable for its use for illegal purposes than a library could be held responsible for someone using the information in a book for illegal purposes (Gallagher, 1995). The second argument that is referred to frequently in the Memorandum of Decision is that the Wire Fraud Statute is not as broadly applicable to rights conferred by statute as it is to property rights. It was the second argument that featured prominently in the decision by the presiding United States District Judge Richard G. Stearns (Stearns, 1994).
More Details about United States v. Lamacchia
Understanding the players, the technology, and the circumstances will facilitate the analysis of the issues. David LaMacchia was a 20-year-old engineering student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) when he was indicted under the Wire Fraud Statute for distributing software on an electronic bulletin board where bulletin board users could download copyright protected software. Also in the language of the indictment was that he was in conspiracy with unknown persons, which can best be interpreted as the users of the bulletin board. In the background are MIT,Microsoft, and the other vendors of the software that was being distributed through the bulletin boards that he was operating.
Resources
Notes and References
- By Jim Moore
See Also
- Types of Cybercrime
- Cybercriminal
Further Reading
Blackmun, H.A. (1985, June 28). Dowling v. United States Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol =207; Gallagher, D.A. (1995, Summer). Free speech on the line: Modern technology and the First Amendment, 3 Comm. Law Conspectus 197, 198; McQuade, S.C. (2005, October 20). Understanding and managing cybercrime. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Stallman, R. (1994). Why software should not have owners. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html; Stearns, R.G. (1994, December 28). United States v. LaMacchia Memorandum of Decision. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.loundy.com/CASES/US_v_LaMacchia.html.
Leave a Reply