It may. Building auto-update functionality into your code may increase the
risk that a court (1) will find that you have the right and ability to "control"
your users (after all, you could disable the software via update, thus effectively
"terminating" users); and (2) will have the capability to force you to make
modifications to the code, then distribute those changes to your users via "update"
(and also order you to deny service to any previous versions). This danger might
be reduced somewhat if you implement an "update is now available, click here
to install" approach rather than a "your code was just updated behind the scenes
without asking you" approach.
Possibly, yes. The vicarious and contributory infringement analysis detailed in the White Paper applies equally to corporations or individuals. So the questions are the same: did you "materially contribute" to and have "knowledge" of infringing activity (contributory) or "financially benefit" from infringement that you had the right and ability to "control" (vicarious)? Although I am not aware of any cases where individual engineers or developers have been held personally liable for contributory or vicarious infringement, there is nothing in the law that would make this impossible. In several cases, for example, corporate executives have been held personally liable for vicarious or contributory copyright infringement alongside the companies that they manage.
You can mail questions to: fred@vonLohmann.com
Copyright 2001