Internet file-sharing law puts employers in tight spot

Some business people may shrug off the new internet file sharing law.

Afterall, isn't it about time that teens, and other reprobates, finally started paying for music?

A particularly loopy late-night parliamentary debate, held mainly amid backbenchers and peppered with bizarre references to the Terminator movies, helped give the impression the issue doesn’t have much weight. And who cares if some whackos on Facebook and Twitter start blacking out their avatars?

But it would be very wrong for employers to casually dismiss the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act, which passed last Thursday, and comes into effect September 1.

Under the law, a rights holder (such as a movie studio or record label) can accuse an internet account holder of illegally downloading copyrighted material, such as a song or film. The account holder is then sent a series of warning letters, over three months, by their internet service provider.

If the matter is unresolved, it then goes to the Copyright Tribunal, which can levy a fine of up to $15,000.

During the process the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence.

As a further sanction, an offender’s internet account can be cut off (although under the revised version of the law, only by an order-in-council, created by a cabinet minister then signed by the Governor General).

So why should business owners care?
Because the person who’s name is on an internet account is responsible for the actions of every person who uses that account – be they an employee, family member, or wi-fi bludger.

Employers are liable, and have no defence if infringement has taken place, confirms Lowndes Jordon partner Rick Shera.

Taken steps to stop it? Doesn't count
It gets worse.

“It doesn't matter if they [employers] know about it or not, have tried to take steps to stop it, or have even fired people caught doing it. There is no defence for them,” Mr Shera said. 

“Imagine a large, distributed organisation that uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute large files.  It is well-nigh impossible for that business to police its systems on an on-going basis even if it had the inclination, resources and time to do so.

"So, over three months (one strike per month) you can easily imagine three or more different people in that organisation  file-sharing infringing material. 

“That will open the business up to fines, even though the business may be doing all it can to stop it.”

Now, finally, we listen to the Cassandras
Before the bill was passed, the Telecommunications Carriers Forum and InternetNZ submitted against the strict liability issue.

As well as making life more complicated for employers, it “also means a business providing free wi-fi is in the gun,” Mr Shera said.