If the software is performing actions that are illegal
But no software is performing any action; A system running said software could, but the software by itself cannot.
And regarding a system performing actions: didn't the USPTO similarly declare that an AI (=software system) can never be qualified as an inventor, because it has no agency?
A bit of an over simplification on my part. The comment I responded to said "the target here is a software package, essentially speech" I was trying to point out that the speech part of the software wasn't the target. The facilitation of illegal actions was. Having or writing code is one thing but actually using it to do something illegal is different.
But no software is performing any action; A system running said software could, but the software by itself cannot.
And regarding a system performing actions: didn't the USPTO similarly declare that an AI (=software system) can never be qualified as an inventor, because it has no agency?