The use of cracks and keygens constitutes the unlawful execution of a copyright-protected computer program by circumventing its digital locks, giving rise to both criminal liability—including judicial fines or imprisonment—and high risks of damages. Bypassing software protection systems without authorization from the copyright holder constitutes a direct intellectual property infringement and a cybercrime under Turkish law.

Software is protected by copyright under the category of a computer program among intellectual works. Source codes and compiled algorithms constitute moral and economic rights of the right holder. Reverse engineering tools that modify software code to avoid paying licensing fees are called “cracks,” while algorithms that generate valid product keys are called “keygens.”

Crack and keygen tools are deemed unlawful instruments under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 (FSEK) and the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK). Such software not only enables unlawful reproduction, but also entails digital interference compromising the integrity of the program. The FSEK grants automatic, unregistered protection to computer programs under the category of scientific and literary works.

Executing, reproducing, or distributing software in breach of a license agreement triggers the protection mechanisms of the FSEK. Neutralizing protective measures without the authorization of the software developer completes the elements of the offense. Additional code snippets providing unauthorized access to an information system are also directly linked to general cybercrimes.

Crack and keygen tools violate the following legal boundaries:

  • They infringe upon the right holder’s exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, and distribution.
  • They manipulate license verification mechanisms integrated into the software.
  • They create an environment contrary to data security obligations where malware infiltrates corporate networks.

What criminal consequences arise from using cracks and keygens?

Depending on the nature of the act, using cracks and keygens incurs imprisonment or judicial fines under Article 71 of FSEK No. 5846 and the cybercrime provisions of the TCK. Individuals who adapt, reproduce, distribute, or possess the program for commercial purposes without the author’s permission shall be punished by imprisonment for one to five years or by a judicial fine.

The possession for commercial purposes of tools manufactured to circumvent the encryption and licensing locks of software is also regulated as an independent offense under Article 72 of the FSEK. A prison sentence of six months to two years is provided for any person possessing technical means intended to bypass licensing systems. These offenses are generally subject to complaint; the right holder must file a complaint within six months from the date they become aware of the infringement and the perpetrator.

Under the TCK, unlawful interference with a system is concerned:

  • Under Article 243 of the TCK, unlawfully accessing an information system by breaking through security shields constitutes an offense.
  • Under Article 244 of the TCK, the prison sentence is aggravated if data within the software system is corrupted or rendered inaccessible.

What claims for damages do companies using cracked software face?

Enterprises where unlicensed software is detected face substantial claims for pecuniary damages and up to three times the license fee initiated by right holders. Pursuant to Article 68 of the FSEK, the right holder is entitled to claim damages up to three times the value of the license fee that could have been demanded had a contract been concluded.

In civil lawsuits to be filed, the court determines commercial edition prices of the software, period of use, and number of devices running the software within the institution. Final amounts determined in accordance with current licensing fees, foreign exchange rates, and interest rates create substantial capital loss for enterprises. Furthermore, loss of commercial reputation, court costs, and adverse party counsel fees are also charged to the infringing party.

In intellectual property disputes, filing a claim for non-pecuniary damages under Article 70 of the FSEK is also possible. Modifying the software or failing to indicate the author’s name without permission constitutes an infringement of moral rights.

How do inspection and detection processes operate?

Software audits gain legal validity through court orders for the preservation of evidence obtained upon digital telemetry reports or tip-offs from software vendors. International software companies initiate legal proceedings by logging the IP addresses and MAC addresses of pirated copies connecting to the internet.

The procedural steps generally comprise the following stages:

  1. The right-holder software company requests subscriber information from the internet service provider associated with the suspect IP address via the public prosecutor’s office or the court.
  2. An order for preservation of evidence is requested from the Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights (or the Civil Court of First Instance where no specialized court exists) to be executed by way of on-site inspection through court bailiffs and expert witnesses.
  3. If granted, the court-appointed expert witness and law enforcement officers enter the relevant place of business and perform forensic imaging and hash verification on the computers.
  4. Crack files, keygen programs, or license key generators identified on the computers are documented in the expert report.
  5. Based on the report, the public prosecutor drafts a criminal indictment, and an action for damages is initiated simultaneously in the civil court.

The competent jurisdiction lies with the Civil Courts for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights at the place where the act occurred or the defendant’s domicile. In provinces where tourism and construction sectors are concentrated, such as Antalya, if no specialized court exists, the competent jurisdiction falls under the Antalya Civil Courts of First Instance.

Employer liability arising from employee acts

Employees installing cracked software on company computers on their own initiative does not exempt the employer from legal liability. Pursuant to Article 66 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), an employer is liable for indemnifying damages caused to third parties by an employee during the performance of assigned duties.

Enterprises that fail to implement necessary technical restrictions and conduct administrative supervision are held directly liable for pirated software installed by personnel. Therefore, companies are obligated to restrict user privileges, maintain software inventories, and conduct periodic audits.

A concrete case study from practice

High-value design software used for technical drawings in an engineering office was installed on four office computers without acquiring licenses, utilizing a keygen file downloaded from the internet. Office personnel actively utilized the program for commercial projects for approximately one year using generated counterfeit license keys.

Upon analyzing suspicious activation data received on its Turkey servers, the software developer established through the internet service provider that the static IP address belonged to said office. The right holder company immediately applied to the Civil Court of First Instance for the preservation of evidence; the expert inspection determined that the software installed on the devices was non-original and that executable (.exe) files had been modified via cracking intervention.

Consequently, the court awarded damages under Article 68 of the FSEK against the enterprise amounting to three times the program license fee, and criminal proceedings were initiated against the company executive under Article 71 of the FSEK. The engineering office faced costs far exceeding the lawful purchase price of the software, and its commercial operations were disrupted for days due to the seizure of office computers for forensic inspection.

Mishandling the process by the parties upon detection of crack and keygen usage exacerbates the extent of damages:

  • The defense that “An employee installed the software without my knowledge”: Because the employer bears a duty of supervision and surveillance, this defense does not eliminate liability for damages.
  • Formatting computers following detection: Attempting to destroy evidence during inspection is evaluated within the scope of spoliation of criminal evidence and creates an adverse presumption.
  • Claiming the unlicensed software was installed merely for evaluation purposes: Mere installation and presence of the program within a commercial establishment is deemed sufficient to establish infringement.
  • Leaving a copyright infringement notice unanswered: Disregarding a settlement notice from the right holder company accelerates litigation seeking treble license fee damages.

Stages of search, preservation of evidence, and defense initiated upon allegations of software copyright infringement demand technical and legal competence. Resolving the legal dispute within the framework of preclusion periods under FSEK legislation and cybercrime criminal procedure requires conducting the process alongside professionals practicing in IT law and mediation, such as Atty. Med. Billur Güler Aslım.

The use of cracks and keygens disabling computer program protections constitutes a manifest infringement entailing criminal sanctions and civil liability risks, even in cases of individual use. Adopting original licensing models respecting copyright remains the most effective legal approach for corporations and individuals to avoid digital security vulnerabilities and severe judicial sanctions.

Related topics