Huo Raymond: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Huo Raymond: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10435] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Winston Churchill once said that out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge. Unfortunately what that wise man said does not apply to the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The more I read the bill the more questions I have. My colleagues said earlier that Labour supports the bill being referred to the Commerce Committee but that we have several reservations. In particular the definition of “Internet service provider”—ISP—needs to be clarified. We disagree with suspending infringers’ access to the Internet for two reasons: firstly it does not work because infringers can simply sign up with a different Internet service provider if they are suspended; and secondly as many experts in this area have argued it seriously and unjustifiably impinges on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Many of the details are left to regulation—for example the amount of the costs payable per infringement. Will it be the market value of a song on iTunes for example or will punitive damages be available? Further it is unclear what impact the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will have on the bill. 
I reiterate that Labour strongly believes that those people who create music films and other entertainment should have their work protected from piracy. It is crucial that we attempt to curtail illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing. This bill will send a powerful message to our creative industries that we value what they do that we legislators want to protect what they do and that we do not believe in censoring the Internet but we are responding to genuine concerns. While in Government Labour tried to address the growing problem of Internet piracy by requiring Internet service providers to police illegal downloading and to have a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat offenders hence the well-debated section 92A of the current Copyright Act. We have considered that section 92A was problematic and we have addressed the issues by meeting with stakeholders and pressing the Government to take another look at the legislation. 
Businesses that represent artists have lost control of the distribution of creative content. The market has failed and legislation is needed to block the flow of peer-to-peer file-sharing that is undermining the entertainment industry. Labour acknowledges that the requirement for stakeholders to develop a code of practice detailing when Internet accounts ought to be terminated was unworkable. 
Two important cases are very helpful here. The first one is  
iiNet v Australian Federation against Copyright Theft 
 where the Australian High Court ruled in favour of the defendant the Internet service provider. The issue in that case was whether the fact that the Internet service provider’s customers were sharing unlicensed copies of films and TV shows using the Internet service provider’s Internet connections meant that the Internet service provider had responsibility to stop them from doing so. The plaintiff said that if the Internet service provider failed to do so it effectively condoned that infringement and was liable itself. The judge found against the plaintiff on most counts. The judge also found reasonable the Internet service provider’s policy of not terminating its customers’ Internet connections just because it had received complaints from copyright owners. The second case relates to the YouTube website where users can upload copyright-infringing material without the knowledge of the site’s owners. The video-sharing site which is owned by Google and is subject to a US$1 billion lawsuit by the US media giant Viacom argues that it cannot screen every video that is uploaded to the site to check whether it infringes copyright. Given the large amount of material hosted on that site however the whole thing could potentially be blocked by the High Court. 
My former partner from Brookfields Lawyers Mr John Ferner stated: “For many accommodation and other tourism service providers facilities which give their customers private and direct access to the net are simply part of the service. Up until now these businesses have not needed to concern themselves too much about what their customers may be up to when using these services but this is about to change.” 
The bill intends to put in place a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringement by unauthorised file-sharing. It replaces a scheme that was delayed thanks to a barrage of criticism fearful that it could have resulted in many unwarranted disconnections from the Net. To conclude Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to the submissions and to robust debates at the select committee. Thank you.