Swain Paul: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15418] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I agree with the member Christopher Finlayson that the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill is complex and in need of good positive law reform. However I cannot agree with him on the issue to do with the timing of Supplementary Order Papers. The problem with comments like that is that most members when they are in Opposition have a very very short memory of what happens and they have very long memories when they are in Government and vice versa. In fact I remember many many occasions in the 1990s when in Opposition that Supplementary Order Papers appeared on the Table just as the debate started. I think there have been occasions when Supplementary Order Papers have not actually been available when second readings have begun and sometimes even just before the Committee stage. 
Of course it is always the right of a Government to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at any stage of the process. In an ideal world it is always good to have sufficient time for members to be able to look into the matters in the Supplementary Order Paper. I think I would probably go along and accept what the member was saying if he was willing to make a solemn pledge to this House that if National ever got back into Government—hopefully not in my lifetime—he would never ever introduce a Supplementary Order Paper without giving sufficient notice to Parliament. 
Shane Ardern 
: We’ll probably appoint you to something. Don’t worry about it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well I am very obliged to the member for that comment but that was not the purpose of this speech even though he might think it is. What I will say is that the member did make a big issue of it and I think it is fair to say that he would not be able to make a personal pledge to this House that under no circumstances would he introduce a Supplementary Order Paper if he was ever a Minister without giving sufficient notice to the Opposition. It would never happen and even if he did try to do that I am sure he would be advised and cautioned by members of his own team because we know that sometimes these things do happen. 
To put all that aside I think one of the things the member was alluding to was the complexity of this issue and I agree with him on that. The reality is of course that technology is changing very quickly and very swiftly and our copyright legislation is built on issues that are really to do with last century. Now that we are moving into the digital era with the availability of much copyright information on the Internet how are Governments supposed to be able to control and protect the copyright of the creator? 
This is one of the things we debated around the issue of parallel importing and in particular parallel importing of films. The argument as I recall from when I was the Minister of Commerce went something along the lines that if the big production companies are going to put lots of money into investing in for example big blockbuster films and if the DVD is able to be imported into the country virtually at the same time as the film appears in the theatres or if it is able to be downloaded from the Internet for nothing then how will the production company be able to get its money back and cover the cost of the significant investment it has made in that particular piece of entertainment? Of course the same applies for rock bands for orchestras and for any group that comes together to try to put forward its own copyright in order to try to make money out of its own talent and ability particularly in writing then is not able to get a return on it. This is a very very difficult issue. 
What we did in the parallel importing area as far as films were concerned was to say that in the case of a major film it was not able to be released in a video shop for 9 months. That proposal was supported by the theatres particularly by regional theatres and some of the new independent theatres that were being established. They said they felt that people in New Zealand wanted to go back to the theatre and that even though people had gone through firstly the VHS revolution and now the DVD revolution they wanted the opportunity to go out. The people who invest in regional theatres said that it would be almost impossible for them to get a return on their investments if people could go down to a video shop and pick up a DVD on the same day as they were showing it first time up. I note that you are nodding in agreement Madam Assistant Speaker. I know that you had something to do with this yourself and that we had some discussions on this issue at that time. 
They are very very complicated matters and I think that in the end we made the right decision. Some people were not happy about it such as DVD owners. My own DVD shop owner who is probably watching this debate because he watches a lot of the debates in Parliament was particularly opposed— 
Shane Ardern 
: I would counsel him against that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have tried to counsel him against it actually. I have told him that he needs to watch a few more of the DVDs in his shop rather than this Parliament because it is probably better for his health. But having said that what it shows me—and I am digressing a little—is that since we have televised Parliament a lot more people are taking an interest in it and I hope it provides better incentives for members to behave in the House. I am not sure whether that is true but certainly a lot more people are interested in watching and hearing the debates on these matters and they are complicated matters. 
This bill reinforces the parallel importing ban. It continues the ban because we were not sure how it would all pan out and I think that is a really good thing. As I said I know that people were upset at the time this measure came in. I think that people used to be able to go down to the DVD shop and pick up a DVD virtually straight away. As I recall we then went through the zone 3 and zone 4 thing whereby some DVD players would play the DVDs and some would not. 
Then of course there is still the age-old problem of straight-out piracy which is still a crime whereby a movie is run in some picture theatres around the world and at the same time another copy is being made instantaneously which is then transformed into a DVD copy and— 
Mark Blumsky 
: It’s $2 in Kuala Lumpur! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Mark Blumsky is right. I have seen copies of these things and one would hardly ever— 
Mark Blumsky 
: Great value but there’s a head that pops up every so often when the person in front stands up in front of the camera. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is the more non-traditional view. One way of copying these things is taking one’s own video camera into the picture theatre but then when someone in front gets up to go and get some popcorn that kind of ruins it. The more modern version of this is where counterfeiters run the DVD at the same time as the film is being shown then go out and print off that. With some of those copies one cannot tell the difference between the copy and the original. 
That is one issue but I think the issue of copying generally is very very difficult. We have known since the time of the Napster revolution that people are downloading CDs off the Internet. We know that there is now technology whereby people can download modern movies off the Internet. We know this. The issue for the industry is how to control that. It usually tries to build some kind of mechanism in to try to stop that from happening. How does the Government try to deal with the problem of copyright for people who deserve to be paid for their talents? This is the issue. I feel strongly about this because I think downloading is a form of theft—there is no question about that. If someone writes a good song a good book or a good poem or if someone plays in an orchestra and if that person does that for a living he or she deserves the right to get some return on that. The Government is trying to do something about this issue in this legislation. 
I think that legislation will always be a catch-up—it will probably always be second best—and that Parliament will always have difficulty trying to keep up with innovations in technology. We do know that the digital age will require more and more amendments to this type of legislation. I think that even if we had a major review—which the member was suggesting—by the time the review was over the technology would have moved on and the solutions would probably be outdated. There will have to be incremental change. On the one hand we do not want to bring in regulation that is too hefty cannot be followed or somehow limits and restricts the openness of the Internet but on the other hand we want to try to make sure that people who have creativity are getting paid for it and that we try to retain that principle. The bill is looking to try to balance those two things. I support the legislation but I predict that this is not the last time we try to deal with this issue in this House.