Mapp Wayne: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18083] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. On behalf of the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill and for hearing over 200 submissions which has resulted in changes to the bill. 
As members of Parliament and those in the community who are interested in this issue will know the bill has had a long genesis and has involved a complex debate on difficult issues. At the heart of the issues was the impact of the Internet on copyright law and the effect it had on incentivising creators to produce original works. 
It is important in law that we provide appropriate protection for creative industries so that they can continue to provide jobs for New Zealanders and continue to contribute to our economy. But at the same time the creative industries must adapt to changing technologies and the changing market place for creative works. 
The Copyright Act 1994 grants exclusive rights to creators of original works so that in a sense they can make an economic return on their creative endeavours. That situation provides a vibrant industry in the fields of music literature films and software in particular. So ensuring that copyright owners have effective measures to enforce their copyright is consistent with the Government’s key goal of encouraging economic growth. However amendments made to the Copyright Act in 2008 were intended to bring the 1994 Act in line with the contemporary digital landscape. These amendments included the insertion of section 92A in the Copyright Act—and I note that Clare Curran the member for Dunedin South has written extensively on this issue in her various blogs—which has required Internet service providers to adopt and reasonably implement a policy for the termination of repeat copyright infringers. 
However as the House will know public and industry opinion was that section 92A was in fact unworkable. Accordingly this Government stopped that provision from coming into force and undertook to look at the issue again. So this bill the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 and also amends Part 6 of the Act to provide a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements. 
Currently copyright owners lack an effective enforcement measure against illegal file-sharing which is somewhat practised by many people who use the Internet often of a younger age group. 
Clare Curran 
: Do you? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I would not do that. However I note that I do know younger relatives who may possibly have done that. Claims in the District Court for copyright infringement via file sharing would be too expensive and costly for both the copyright owners and for those wishing to contest infringement claims. The current process is unduly complicated in that copyright owners need to apply for a court order to get an Internet service provider to release an Internet account holder’s details before they can make a claim. 
The bill provides for copyright owners or their representatives to send information showing alleged copyright infringement via file sharing to the relevant Internet service provider. The Internet service provider will then match that information to an account holder and it may then—and this is the important point—send up to three infringement notices within the prescribed time frames. This is known as the three-notice rule. 
If the account holder ignores those warnings and continues infringing the bill provides for the copyright owner to take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal. The tribunal can make awards of up to $15000. As other speakers will note there are other provisions in the bill including a provision for copyright owners to apply to the District Court as opposed to the Copyright Tribunal for the suspension of an Internet account for up to 6 months in appropriate circumstances. 
The key recommendation from the Commerce Committee is that provisions in the bill relating to Internet suspension do not come into force until such time as specified by an Order in Council. I should note that there were a large number of submissions on this specific issue arguing both for and against Internet suspension as a deterrent for copyright infringement. The compromise recommended by the Commerce Committee and supported by the Government is one that provides the right balance between the interests of Internet users and the need for an effective deterrent against illegal file-sharing. The Government is committed to monitoring the infringement notice process and the Copyright Tribunal process in order to determine whether they are in fact sufficient deterrents to illegal file-sharing. 
Another key recommendation from the select committee is that Internet service providers will not be initially required to set up a notice-sending system for their mobile broadband networks which of course are increasingly popular systems for file sharing. This covers a period of 2 years after the bill comes into force whilst the Government monitors any copyright infringing activity from these sources as those devices increase in their capability. However an Order in Council can change the date that these networks are included if there is a substantial increase in the volume of file sharing over mobile broadband and that would be an essential part of noting change in technology and change in Internet capacity through broadband networks. 
There were a number of submissions on whether the bill should include specific exceptions to prevent an order or award being made by the Copyright Tribunal or the District Court against an Internet account holder. The Government considers that the Commerce Committee has developed a sensible recommendation on this particular issue. The committee has recognised that creating specific exceptions in itself would create loopholes and has instead recommended that the tribunal or the court has the discretion not to make an award or order where it would be manifestly unjust. This will allow the relevant body to determine on the facts of each case whether an award should be made in the circumstances. 
It is important to note that Internet users should attempt to ensure that their connections should not be used for illegal purposes—that is a very circumspect sentence. There may be a number of useful technical procedural amendments proposed by the committee that the Government will support. The Government will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage which will propose minor technical amendments. The Supplementary Order Paper will also amend the commencement date for the Act from 1 July 2011 to 1 September 2011. 
In closing I reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensure the Copyright Act remains a useful and effective tool for New Zealand’s creative industries which contribute significantly and whose contribution will increase in the future. As I know from my role as the Minister of Science and Innovation they will contribute significantly to our economy our culture and our role in the wider world. I commend the bill to the House.