Curran Clare: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Curran Clare: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18103] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take this call as one of a number I hope in the Committee stage of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. There are many things to talk about so I will start with trying to get to the heart of the issue as I see it for Labour which is the suspension issue and whether people’s Internet accounts should ever be terminated. That is something that Labour feels very strongly against. We are supporting this bill because we have reached a compromise where although termination remains in the bill it will not be enacted unless it is enacted by an Order in Council. 
Before I talk about that I will just put it clearly on the record that Labour absolutely supports our local artists musicians and creative industries whose successes have shaped New Zealand and the very face of New Zealand inside our country and internationally. It is really important to put that on the record because a number of speakers have mentioned the importance of our creative industries. But I will also put on the record that it is important to support them not only in words but also in deeds. That means supporting our public media our public broadcasting and our public creative industries. Unfortunately we are not going in that direction in this country at the moment; we are going in the other direction by making cuts to them. The cut to TVNZ 7 is probably one of the most significant cuts in terms of funding for a new digital channel in our new digital environment. That is where we should be putting our investment but unfortunately we are not. 
I will read to members from one of the submissions brought before the Commerce Committee. Before I do so I acknowledge the extraordinarily committed dedicated and intelligent hard work done by the officials during the debate. There was an awful lot of debate in the select committee. Some new cutting-edge issues were discussed. Although some of the members around the table had a bit more of an idea than others about what was being talked about at times the officials were very patient. I acknowledge the work they did by coming back over and over again with more analysis and more definition around some of the issues. 
I will give members a picture on the issue of file sharing. I will be honest; one of my colleagues came to me recently and said she wanted to get access to a piece of music—her favourite song. She has loved the song for years and cannot buy it anywhere. She does not know where to find it. She had tried everywhere. It is not on Amazon and she cannot get it in a shop. She does not know how to get the song. She asked me what she should do. I asked her whether she had been on the Internet and looked for the song. She said she had but that all these file-sharing sites kept coming up. I said I would ask for some advice. The advice that came back to me was that because the song is not sold anywhere any more—it is not available in any shop—the only way to get it is to go to one of the BitTorrent sites and download it illegally. My colleague would not and did not do that but that gives us an idea of why so many people are file sharing. They are downloading content illegally in an environment where they cannot get access to material because either it is not available in any other form or it is not available in their jurisdiction because the material has not been released. That is unacceptable and it demonstrates flawed business models across the industry that are not responding to consumer demand. 
I asked of every submitter who came before the select committee who represented a rights holder whether they had a business model in train to enable people to file share legally and the answer was no. Essentially that is a failure of the market and it is the reason why we are looking at this legislation today. The bill is putting in place a regime to hopefully educate people to cease the file-sharing activities that are being talked about—70 million items are being downloaded illegally. The only problem is that the alternatives are not great. That is one of the core issues. 
I will read to you from the submission— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the person in the Chair when using the word “you”. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: My apologies. I wish to read to the Committee the introductory points from the submission of InternetNZ. InternetNZ is an organisation that could be described as being very future thinking. It represents many in the industry who are Internet service providers but also people who are passionate about the Internet. InternetNZ is what one would describe as a moderate organisation as well as being future thinking. The submission stated: “This Bill is a major improvement on the legislation it seeks to replace. Infringing file sharing is happening (and cannot be condoned) but it is important to consider the effects of it before deciding how to tackle it. The copyright content industries are doing exceptionally well given the global economic situation. Sales are up and more money than ever before is going to Kiwi artists. This success shows that file sharing is not having a damaging impact on the industry and that the evidence presented to that effect has been deemed unreliable by among others the United States government. Because the impact of file sharing does not seem to be major Parliament should not take major complicated and expensive steps to address it. It should not allow the content industry to seek aid in propping up an unsustainable business model. The best way to tackle file sharing would be to impose a notice and notice regime where those found infringing get told their activity has been picked up.” 
That submission was reflective of a number of submissions. The Creative Freedom Foundation is another organisation that started its submission by stating: “We support the purpose of this Bill. Changes in technology that have made copying easier have led to the need for new copyright enforcement processes that are effective for artists as rights holders while maintaining due process protections.” 
We had a number of submissions from reasonable organisations in a future-thinking space that said that some enforcement measures need to be in place but that they need to be very moderate. We need to address the fact that there are flawed business models and that the Draconian measures of termination or suspension—whatever we want to call it—are overreacting to the size of the infringement. That is essentially the basis for the opposition to the termination or suspension of accounts as a remedy for file sharing. It is disproportionate to the problem. It will not solve it because ultimately we are still left with the issue of where people can get their content legally. There are places on the Internet where people can get their content legally but unfortunately many of those places require users to sign up. Those business models are starting to emerge but they are not by any means available right across the industry. They are not available to most ordinary people in New Zealand. 
Another very good example of absolutely getting to the guts of the issue—and which I mentioned in my first reading speech—was the movie that I think won the Oscar—