Adams Paul: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4653] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. To a large extent this bill endeavours to ensure that those who have produced films sound recordings and with certain restrictions computer programs are able to receive a fair return on their investment. In many cases such as the film industry we are talking about substantial investment. 
With the removal of the restrictions on parallel importing in 1998 some ambiguity arose with regard to the application of rental rights. This led to the High Court case in November 2001 that confirmed that Parliament had never intended that the scope of the rental rights under the Act should not apply to parallel-imported copies of works protected under New Zealand copyright law. This court case confirmed that rental of the parallel-imported DVD copies of two recently released film titles infringed the rental rights of the owner of the copyright in those films. This bill will now amend the principal Act to make clear the intended meaning of this provision as confirmed by the High Court and remove any remaining uncertainty concerning rental rights. 
The purpose of this bill is therefore to introduce a ban on the parallel importation of films which includes DVDs and videos made primarily for public showing in cinemas for 9 months after a title’s first international release. It is important to note that this primarily affects those who import films for resale or hire. It will not affect the ability of individuals to import single copies for private use. 
United Future agrees that where people invest substantial amounts of money as in the film industry then plan a global release of their film they should have protection to enable them to release the film throughout the world in a manner that allows them to receive the due return on their investment. One reason for this ban is to address these concerns as the parallel importing of videos and DVDs could threaten the financial viability of widespread cinema release of films in cases where videos and DVDs of major films are imported from say the United States ahead of their New Zealand release date. United Future believes that this is a valid concern and this bills protects the intellectual property rights of the copyright owners of these films and their rights to market their product as they see fit. It is refreshing to see legislation that recognises that people who invest also have the right to protection of that investment. If we fail to do this investment would stop and the world would be a poorer place for us all. 
United Future as a true centralist party recognises the importance of maintaining a good balance in the legislation for our nation of caring for those who are unable to care for themselves but also of appreciating where we receive the funding from to give the care and that is from the income producers. Profit and protection of profit centres for those who are prepared to take the risk to earn will always be appreciated supported and protected by United Future. 
This bill also amends the Copyright Act to clarify its meaning with regard to the scope of rental rights granted under the Act. The amendment makes it clear that Parliament never intended for the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act to apply to parallel-imported copies of works protected under New Zealand copyright law. 
The ban on the importation of DVDs and videos for 9 months after their cinema release date in New Zealand has a 5-year sunset clause. This will provide an opportunity to assess whether the ban should be continued in the light of developments in the digital distribution of films and cinema projection technology. We all live in a rapidly changing world especially technology-wise so this is a sensible clause. 
Another important feature of this bill is that it shifts the evidentiary onus in respect of whether the goods—that is the films DVDs and computer software—in question are infringing copies from the plaintiff to the defendant in civil proceedings concerning the act of importation. This is to help reduce piracy in these areas. This reversal would ordinarily be considered a breach of the fundamental rule of civil procedure that the onus of proof for an action lies with the plaintiff. In this case however this very limited reversal of the onus of proof complete with consequential safeguards I might add is justifiable because amongst other things legitimate importers will almost always have ready access to information concerning lines of supply that can establish whether goods are infringing copies—for example receipts and proof of purchase certificates. 
Consequential amendments are also made to the Trade Marks Act 2002 to ensure that registered trademarks cannot be used to frustrate legitimate parallel importing in line with the Government’s parallel-importing policy. 
Therefore United Future is pleased to support this legislation going to the select committee.