Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10428] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to take a call in the first reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. File sharing is a fact of modern life. Internet service providers say that sometimes at night 90 percent of Internet traffic is illegal file-sharing. The Internet has built connections and increased global communications as significantly if not more than the telegraph. It has contributed to more collaborative ways of working. The Internet has revolutionised business and the global economy. The Internet has unleashed fantastic creativity from the arts to academia and business. 
However in many cases making a business out of creativity is not a viable proposition because of illegal file-sharing. The Green Party supports this bill at its first reading because although it might not solve the problem it will play a part in the solution and send a good message that what is happening is illegal and is damaging New Zealand creatives and Internet entrepreneurs. This bill is an affirmation of New Zealand creativity. At the moment essentially the only sector making money out of Kiwi musicians’ and Kiwi film makers’ hard work is Internet service providers. If we want a growing viable and exciting Kiwi music and movie industry we have to protect musicians’ and film makers’ rights to make a living off their work. A whole generation has grown up not paying for film or music but this is not sustainable. 
The Internet has created a new digital economy. This bill will help entrepreneurs to maximise the Internet as a means of making their living. Other countries that have implemented file-sharing protection along these lines such as Sweden have seen legal music services increase dramatically. Companies that once were not viable now are. New technologies like the Internet mean we need laws that allow new business models to develop and flourish. This bill is a first step in that direction and it will not be the last before this House. 
This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. It repeals section 92A of the Act which was not brought into force but would have required Internet service providers to adopt a policy providing for the termination of repeat infringers’ Internet accounts. In summary it cleans up the mess that was made by the previous Government regarding section 92A. This bill goes incredibly far towards the demands set by the Creative Freedom Foundation and others in response to the Draconian section 92A which was put forward during the last parliamentary term. It repeals the existing section 92A and replaces it with a notice system that copyright holders can then use to go to a tribunal and ask for penalties for repeated copyright infringement. The Green Party was the only party to oppose section 92A at every stage in the House and to offer genuine amendments to fix it. This bill removes the onerous definition of “Internet service provider” and the awkward way they were being made into police jury judge and executioner and all at their own cost. On balance our concerns have been conscientiously addressed and the Minister of Justice Simon Power is to be congratulated. 
We still have some niggles with some of the definitions and with the service cut-off provision which many think is pointless. There are also issues about how open wireless points can be handled and the kinds and level of fines to be issued within the statutory limit. We were also interested in looking at the termination issue. Even if infringers have their connection terminated they can still switch providers. I believe questions can be rightfully asked such as those asked by Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation about whether the Internet is a core vital public service. We would not terminate someone’s right to post a letter. We look forward to looking at this bill in detail at the select committee and the Greens will be supporting it. 
This bill is an essential part of protecting Kiwi creatives and it strikes a sensible balance between Internet service providers copyright holders and file sharers. We still have some way to go to change the culture of file sharing in New Zealand. A survey on movie file-sharing amongst young New Zealanders commissioned by the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft found that a notice from their Internet service providers would be enough to stop 71 percent of young people from further accessing illegal copies of movies. Along with the notices and potential financial penalties outlined in this bill education is important. My generation has grown up with a culture of file sharing. I probably have watched illegally downloaded material and shared files that breach copyright. In many cases people simply are not aware that what they are doing is wrong or that the material they are accessing has been provided through illegal means. 
Unlike the previous amendment bill this bill has widespread public support from the Creative Freedom Foundation InternetNZ the Library and Information Association of New Zealand and the Australasian Performing Right Association. The Australasian Performing Right Association speaks for our Kiwi creatives. It says that it is not its intention to cut people off from the Internet; rather it is to continue to allow creatives to make a living from their skills knowledge and energy. Sure musicians can make money from performing live on the street as they always have and always will but they cannot be reduced to this as their only source of income like some 19th century street musician. Screen Directors Guild executive director Anna Cahill has said: “New Zealand artists and audiences stand to lose unless the government strengthens the proposal to build a framework for stopping online copyright infringement.” 
Digital copyright protection is crucial for new digital business models to be successful. The bottom line is that the creators should be paid if they want but Internet users also need protection and balance. The fact is that file sharing and downloading copyright files is now a social norm. Previously the copyright enforcement agency required a court order to obtain the identity of the infringer from that infringer’s Internet service provider. The costs of doing so often outweighed the possible damage or did not justify the effort. 
Over the course of the Internet’s existence in New Zealand we have missed a great opportunity to protect digital copyright and establish different social norms in this country. This has to be taken into account. It cannot be assumed that all infringers are brazen criminals trying to steal creatives’ work for financial gain. Often it is one’s brother cousin or boss. There are genuine repeat offenders who are doing significant damage to our creatives and in many cases arguably deserve the potential $15000 fine. These people know exactly what they are doing they are aware of the illegality of it and they are motivated by a sense of currently being able to get away with it. 
We need some clarity around the fines schedule because it is unclear what level the fines will be. For example the $15000 maximum fine is modelled on the same limit as the disputes tribunal and at present we all know that the amount will be based on damage to the copyright owner. But in practice how much will the fine be for a movie or an album? The public must be given some real figures. If the purpose of parading a maximum $15000 fine is to scare the public into compliance then the education incentive of this bill will be lost. 
In summary the Green Party looks forward to submissions at the select committee. We will be voting for this bill at its first reading. Kia ora.