Who's liable for illegal downloads in the workplace?

by Chloe Taylor22 Apr 2015
Following a Federal Court Judge’s order earlier this month that several Australian internet service providers disclose the identities of thousands who illegally downloaded Hollywood blockbuster Dallas Buyers Club, around 4700 culprits are expected to receive letters demanding compensation from the filmmakers.

But who is liable if illegal downloading occurs in the workplace?

According to Will Spargo, senior associate at Lander & Rogers Lawyers, employers could potentially be liable for staff members who illegally download content at work.

“Under the Copyright Act a person – which could include an employer – who authorises an infringement of copyright will be liable in the same way as the person who commits the act,” Spargo told HC.

In considering whether a person has authorised an infringement, there are three key things a court will take into account:
  • The extent of that person’s power to prevent the action from occurring
  • The nature of the relationship between that person and the person who infringed the copyright
  • Whether the person took reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the act from occurring
“Given an employer’s capacity to control people’s actions at work, it’s my view that a court could find an employer had authorised it if reasonable steps to prevent the infringement from occurring were not taken,” he added.

Spargo said that a key step employers can take to prevent workers from downloading material – and to avoid liability for authorising illegal downloads – is to have a clear policy in place which instructs that employees should not download any material which would infringe copyright and give examples to their employees of how this might occur.

“In order to show that they have taken all possible steps to prevent illegal downloading, it’s important that the policy doesn’t sit on a shelf gathering dust; it should be regularly brought to employees’ attention, and there should be training on the policy at regular intervals,” he explained. “I’d suggest that a section on the prohibition of downloading copyrighted material be included as part of a broader policy on social media and internet use.”

Spargo also said that although he didn’t think it that it is necessarily an employer’s responsibility to prevent illegal downloading of copyright content by their employees, there is certainly a risk of liability if there’s no policy in place around it.

“Having said that, to my knowledge, this issue of liability is yet to be tested in Australia – but in light of the Dallas Buyers Club decision, it’s possible that owners of copyrighted content will start to be more proactive in pursuing people who download or authorise the illegal downloading of copyrighted content,” he added.

Having an appropriate social media and internet use policy in place isn't only important for helping to prevent the illegal downloading of copyright content by employees, Spargo advised. It also:
  • Ensures that an employer has  the ability to take appropriate disciplinary action against employees for internet misuse; and
  • Reduces an employer's risk of liability more generally for their employees' online conduct.    


  • by wtf 22/04/2015 1:01:53 PM

    How did we as a society get to this absurd situation where the employer is held responsible for their employees breaking the law.

  • by Anonymous 24/04/2015 6:59:36 AM

    How are we supposed to know if what were watching or listening to is copyrighted? Isn't everything copyrighted automatically? So how is listening or watching something that's copyrighted illegal? How did possessing information become illegal? How do you know what information it is, until you possess it? Is the whole point of this to make sure that we don't watch or listen to anything unless it comes from a big household-name corporation? Because, damn it, I'd give up listening to music and watching movies for ever, before I'll ever give a single dollar to another multi-billion dollar corporation!

Most Read