Huo Raymond: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Huo Raymond: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18097] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. Before I start I wish to acknowledge the great efforts put into the bill by the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power and also the Hon Lianne Dalziel the wonderful chairperson of the Commerce Committee. The issue of file sharing is not easy. The bill is a great compromise. I also thank my learned colleague Labour’s communication and information technology spokesperson Clare Curran. Her press release dated 3 November 2010 was so good that it has been well read by stakeholders and interested parties. 
Due to a last-minute compromise between Labour and National no New Zealanders will have their Internet connection terminated as a result of the proposed new copyright laws. The compromise means that the provision for termination of Internet access as an ultimate penalty for repeat copyright infringement remains in the bill but cannot be enacted unless the Minister makes the decision to do so. The Minister would have to enact the termination clause by Order in Council which puts the onus on the creative industries to prove there is a case to terminate access on the Internet service providers to ensure that the system of providing deterrent notices to copyright infringers works and on the Minister to ultimately make the call. Without that compromise Labour could not have supported the bill. The compromise is important realistic and well warranted but I acknowledge the points raised by Mr Gareth Hughes and I look forward to seeing what his amendment has to offer at the Committee stage. 
I agree that we are dealing with the real world and with reality. In this world in our modern daily lives Internet access is fast becoming as necessary to us as the provision of morning or evening newspapers or as important as television cellphones water or electricity. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish a regime that deters file sharing that infringes copyright to educate the public about the problem to compensate copyright owners for damage sustained from copyright infringement by file sharing to provide sanctions for serious copyright infringements and to limit Internet service provider liability that may result from account holders’ infringing activities. The bill is largely about education and deterrence. 
Much has been said about the controversial section 92A and the widespread objections it has attracted. Some submitters at the select committee hearing described the section as one of guilt upon accusation. The bill repeals section 92A and replaces it with a three-notice regime backed up by a $15000 fine and a 6-month Internet suspension. Minister Power described the three-notice regime as the major feature that educates the public about illegal file-sharing and that provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright. The bill ensures that infringers are given adequate warnings that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal. The three-notice regime despite its gentle name seems to have won wider support as an effective mechanism. It is believed to be more effective than the much-hyped three-strikes regime. 
Following Judge David Harvey’s wonderful submissions he informed us that a survey in France in 2008 found that 90 percent of users would stop illegal file-sharing after two warnings from their Internet service provider. Judge Harvey also made available a copy of the 2008 Digital Music Survey conducted by Entertainment Media Research in the UK. The survey showed that 70 percent of users would cease infringing activities after one notice from their Internet service provider. In a local context the Young New Zealanders and Movie Downloading survey found that more than 70 percent of respondents in New Zealand would cease infringing activities if they received a letter from their Internet service provider. 
I thank Judge Harvey for his contribution. I remember my early university days in Auckland when I had the privilege of studying information technology law under Judge Harvey. The classes started at 8 o’clock in the morning and Judge Harvey who is always energetic and thoughtful would have to rush to the city campus of the University of Auckland and 2 hours later rush back to the District Court in Manukau. Judge Harvey is New Zealand’s most tech-savvy jurist. His submissions enlightened me and the select committee and I thank him for his great contribution. 
Submissions from TradeMe Two Degrees Mobile Ltd the New Zealand Film Commission InternetNZ Computerworld and the University of Auckland were good too. The University of Auckland in its submission raised some important issues. It had two serious concerns among others. The first concern was that the bill as worded is not consistent with the explanatory note. The university’s second concern was that if universities libraries schools or similar organisations are excluded from the definition of Internet service providers then they are potentially liable as account holders. 
I note that the Commerce Committee report recommends that the term “ISP”—that is Internet service provider—be replaced by the new term “IPAP” which is Internet protocol address provider. I look forward to discussing the matter in more detail and more specifically relevant amendments to the Act such as to sections 92 29 and 122 at the Committee stage. 
Labour is prepared to support the bill through its remaining stages due to a compromise we have reached with National as was explained by my learned colleague Clare Curran who took the first call on behalf of Labour. The compromise means that provision for the suspension of Internet access as an ultimate penalty for repeat copyright infringement remains in the bill but cannot be enacted unless the Minister makes the decision to do so. Labour’s preferred option was to completely omit the provision for account suspension because it is Draconian unnecessary and would not work. The provision for account suspension remains in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future but any Minister who implements termination would have to wear the consequences. Rather than oppose the bill outright we prefer to compromise to ensure that New Zealanders are not denied access to the Internet which is something that many people rely on heavily nowadays. Thank you.