But not for 30k. I doubt a court would award this much in damages if he was sued. Even before that, I don't think CERN is justified in releasing his identity (edit: I mean, the identity of the student to the software vendor for them to sue).
1) CERN also did a grown-up negotiation to have the person work for them, and therefore carry out his function as the legal entity "CERN", not as himself. Any action he did in his function, is legally executed by CERN, not by the employee. That of course includes installing software he needs for his job, and certainly covers installing any software CERN directed him to install.
This works both ways : if he invents/builds/... something and CERN sells the fruits of his labor (or otherwise profits from it), he doesn't have a claim to single cent of that profit. If he does something as part of his job that damages CERN, the most he can lose is his job. If he unintentionally blows up CERN headquarters, CERN quite literally has to pay him his wages for doing so, medical expenses, ... the company would even have to replace his cell phone if it broke during the explosion and pay to have his pants cleaned afterwards. The unintentional part is only required because, if intentional, it would be a criminal act (and this intent needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not merely indicated). Even if he failed to follow safety procedures while doing so, it was the company's responsibility to correct him, and the consequences for failing to do so are theirs.
2) stealing is a criminal act, and governed by an ENTIRELY different part of the law. The two cannot be compared. This case would be governed by employment law and commercial law, stealing is covered by criminal law.
But your example has another flaw: if you can even vaguely reasonably claim you took the item by accident, yes you should be able to pay the $5 and be even. No criminal court judge is going to convict anyone who non-violently took a $5 item, and offered to pay the damage in full the second he was confronted. This would not be reasonable.
IANAL but your company is not shielding you from legal responsibility of the illegal actions you take, even if you are required by your employee to engage in those activities.
That is a warning to be careful I heard was given to sysadmin. Even if their boss require them to steal personal information or "find" software, they are legally responsible for doing it.
There is a point area somewhere between murder and failure to protect confidential information at which the company takes over responsibility, but that's not a blanket protection as financial obligations.
Depends what you mean by "illegal", there are over two dozen main kinds of illegal. As a massive simplification anything not found in the "criminal law" or "employment law" books your employer covers while you're working (and in some states while you're doing things you're only doing because you work, e.g. drive to work).
So, very generally speaking, anything you can't get arrested for is covered by your employer.
Nope. He/she did not negotiate it. The company is speculatively invoicing CERN. CERN are attempting (with dubious legality) to pass it to a University who are attempting (with extremely dubious legality) to pass it to a student. The student should call his/her lawyer asap and should certainly not pay this demand without forcing all the parties to actually undergo some due process.
I think it is safe to assume that HE knowingly and wilfully breached his contract with CERN. again TFA states that, and I quote, "Understandably, the student was shocked when we investigated the case and he was forced to acknowledge the facts."
The student has wilfully broken the law. Due process has clearly been undertaken. Again, RTFA.
She should never have acknowledged the 'facts'. She should have called her lawyer. She should also point out that she was under pressure to get stuff done and was under the impression that she had a licence to use the product.
Due process implies a legal process not a random invoice and several large organisations charging an individual an arbitrary amount.
No. You are wrong and getting very tedious. This individual, a male by the account of a person that has first hand knowledge (something you, or indeed I, do not have) of the situation, did wilfully obtain software for use outside of the agreed license scope. HE didn't get it from an authorised reseller or from CERN, an innocent party in all of this. HE obtained this from an illicit site. The ramifications of this action could have been considerably worse; someone has already mentioned confliker.
Let's examine your quoting the word "facts". Are you disputing that HE acted unethically? By using unlawfully procured software? Are you really arguing that these actions should go entirely unpunished?
There is only 1 organisation charging an individual, who has used said company's product unlawfully (this is the bit you seem incapable of acknowledging). The other 2 were implicated by HIS unlawful and unethical and merely met their legal obligations in identifying the guilty party.
Whichever way you look at this, however militantly anti-capitalist you are, failing to accept the individual acted unethically and with impunity is a ridiculous position to take. Should HE pay the money? No. HE should negotiate. HIS career in the very small field that is academic particle physics is over as HE has acted unethically.
