Let's be clear, the primary focus of law is computer operators as active agents, not computers.
Computers are just complicated modern machines, the mechanical essence of which has existed since before time immemorial.
The fact that someone configures a computer to work on a timer, or connects a trigger button, or whatever, there are generally simpler machines and mechanisms that contain the essence of the legal problem.
For example, Bob wires a bomb to an alarm clock. Who is legally responsible for the blast, the alarm clock itself, the alarm clock maker, or Bob? The answer is now quite obviously Bob, isn't it.
Bob wires a bomb to a vending machine button. Alice presses the button for a chocolate bar, triggering the blast. Who is responsible? Bob again.
Bob wires a bomb to a dead-mans handle for Charlie, a suicide bomber. Charlie later detonates the bomb by releasing the handle. Who is criminally responsible? Certainly Charlie if he were still there, but Bob has probably violated separate laws on explosives and dangerous machines, plus various aiding, abetting, and conspiring laws in connection with any wrongdoing Charlie executes.
You can extend the overall mechanism or system to Rube-Goldberg levels of complexity. The question is never about inanimate objects or mechanical processes having responsibility, but about the mentality and behaviour of the people involved - whether that concern those who devise or furnish the mechanism, or those who harness it to a particular end.
Applying this to a copying of files, the responsible person would be anyone who intends that the files be copied contrary to law, and does some act which causes it to occur (including through the necessary or possible consequence of a mechanical or bureaucratic process the crook devises).
If another person is subsequently involved in that process, performing some crucial physical act without which the crime would not occur, the question is about whether they have the relevant knowledge of the criminal outcome or purpose. If so, they may be in a role similar to the suicide bomber. If not, they may be in a role similar to the person using the vending machine to get a chocolate bar.
Either way, for the criminal law, the central object of concern are the people involved, their acts, and their intentions. No independence is attributed to inanimate objects or impersonal machines.