software legal-concepts online-piracy
What problems would a celebrity releasing software patchers cause from a legal standpoint?
<p>I've heard claims that Gigi Hadid has admitted to releasing the now-infamous Adobe Zii patcher for Adobe CC products (it was on her social media some time ago, now-removed by the hosts) and providing Adobe CC serials for people.</p>

<p>I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but from a legal standpoint, would this ever reach open court, and could it be a PR disaster for Gigi Hadid?</p>

<p>Is this likely to go unenforced in terms of downloading, or would Adobe pursue this? I read on straightdope.com it said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The law goes after people DISTRIBUTING the thing, not downloading it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Adobe CC products are not abandonware, so what could this whole situation mean for Ms. Hadid from a legal standpoint?</p>

<p>I've heard that Taylor Swift has also done a similar thing, but with Photoshop CC serials for download, and that Karlie Kloss has admitted to releasing software patchers and promoting them via AppKed (so my source who works in Hollywood tells me).</p>

<p>Also, what's the legal status of AppKed (which is famously used by celebrities such as Taylor Swift, Gigi Hadid, Ellie Goulding, Joe Jonas, Ariel Winter) - is this a violation of US law? (you'd have to google AppKed to know what i mean!)</p>

<p>I work in the celebrity sphere, but not from the legal side of things, only as an assistant / virtual assistant etc. to some celebrities in addition to being their personal driver (of a black minivan or SUV usually), so aren't sure what the full social and legal consequences of their actions would be? I only really tend to deal with traffic law, not consumer or software stuff.</p>

<p>The law does not go after anybody, people use the law to go after other people. It is a violation of copyright law (and possible other things) to distribute <em>or</em> download material without permission of the owner. The law does not at all govern whether a certain action will be a PR disaster. The law also does not give you any basis for predicting whether a rights-holder will care about infringement.</p>

<p>It is less likely that the end user will be pursued, and instead actions would be against distributors. To prevail in an infringement lawsuit, you have to prove that the defendant did illegally copy a work. This may be technically possible, but costly, and generally only worth it in the case of large-scale IP thieves, as in the case of <a href="http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/12/09/112820P.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jammie Thomas-Rassett</a>, and possibly <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/07/has-the-riaa-sued-18000-people-or-35000/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">20,000 or so others</a>. Even then, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some parties</a> feel that pursuing end-infringers is counterproductive.</p>
