Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9406] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 What a pity it is that Paul Adams and his “sensible party” do not understand and are totally confused by the difference between parallel importing and piracy. He has assumed that they are both the same. Parallel importing is the term for bringing goods in under a legitimate licence parallel to the authorised licensee. Piracy is producing or importing goods without any licence and without any authority whatsoever. So Mr Adams should understand the difference between those two before he starts spouting on about how sensible his party is. 
I would like to carry on the debate on Part 2. The trademark of parallel importation is that it is done with a legitimate licence. It is a legitimate means of importing and generally it is at a lower cost to the authorised licensee. Because a person has purchased it and has used the exchange rates of a much cheaper source he or she can bring it in and distribute it here at a more realistic price for general consumption by the public. 
 One of those wide distributors is the Red Shed which brings items in from overseas and is able to distribute them at a much lower price than a lot of other distributors can. It does not mean it has purchased pirated copies; it has purchased legitimate copies but has sourced them from a cheaper location. 
Protection of the trademark is most important. Technologies these days have advanced to a great extent and that means that a lot of products can be purchased over the Internet. Trademarks need to be protected and I see this bill as a means of protecting them. The bill brings a more modern style of technology to the whole industry. The old Copyright Act of 1994 has fallen behind in terms of the technology side of things. It was put in place before DVDs were even thought of and certainly before any were being distributed in this country. I suggest that this bill will fall behind in terms of the technology of the future but at least it brings the current technology into line. 
As far as protecting small cinemas is concerned the bill attempts to do that but unfortunately it allows the genuine distribution by the authorised licensee to distribute from the day the films and products are distributed to the public internationally. There is no limit on when distributors can distribute so if an authorised distributor decides it wants to distribute within a small range of cinemas only then other cinemas outside that range will be limited. They will not be able to get access to the films and they certainly will not be able to make any profit or gain on them while they are in high demand in the initial stages of their release. Finally when the authorised distributor allows the small cinemas to show the film it is usually at the slack period when the demand is falling off. So because of the general control by the authorised distributor the bill does not really protect smaller cinemas. I think the bill should have looked a little closer at that. 
But in general New Zealand First supports this bill because it brings the technologies up to date and recognises technologies we could not even imagine when the original bill was discussed and debated. New Zealand First will be supporting the passage of this bill into the third reading.