Coddington Deborah: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: 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:9400] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to respond to the accusations from the member of United Future who accused the ACT party of— 
Brent Catchpole 
: Who? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: United Future—the one whose leader will be the Prime Minister in a couple of years! That member accused ACT of not protecting intellectual copyright. This bill is not about protecting intellectual copyright. I accept that “intellectual” is a word that probably does not pass into that member’s focus very often. This bill is about protecting the licence rights of overseas distributors and the right of big theatre chains in New Zealand to have an exclusive statutorily legalised monopoly for 9 months on the showing of films. 
Nobody is supporting the importation of pirated videos and CDs. If that member had read the bill he would know that it says one cannot import anything even if it is legally obtained and does not breach copyright. The bill is about parallel importing. Is that member suggesting that the Warehouse breaches copyright every time it sells books that are parallel imported because they are half the price of Whitcoulls’ books? I would be interested to know if that is what he is suggesting. If he were consistent he would be accusing the Warehouse of breaching copyright by selling books published outside the copyright—which is parallel importing. Parallel importing is not the same as breaching copyright. The banning of parallel importing protects exclusive licence rights. 
The Hon Tony Ryall was absolutely correct when he said that this bill would be a bonus for big business and wealthy people. It will be bad for people who cannot afford for whatever reason to take six kids to the movies in the first 9 months that a movie comes out and who want to buy a video or a DVD— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Even rent a video. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: —or even rent a video of  
Finding Nemo 
  
The Lion King 
 or any of those movies that come out and which we used to be able to get. The Warehouse is a classic example of a place where families on low incomes could do their Christmas shopping at an affordable rate but this bill will stop that. 
This bill will not do anything to protect copyright at all. That member is confused. I think he should read the bill again because it will encourage the breaching of copyright. When the parallel importing of popular products is banned for 9 months people who want them will find other illegal ways to get them. The ACT party does not support that. It does not support the burning of CDs on the Internet. It does not support the selling of them. We know that it already goes on. Young people do it a lot. They seem to have some sort of unwritten code—which is nice—that they do not do it to local artists such as Bic Runga Stellar and all those groups. Some young people have a sort of code that they do not burn the works of New Zealand artists. Nevertheless $33 to buy a CD is a lot of money so the temptation is already there to burn CDs and pirate their use. I can guarantee that when this bill is passed burning piracy and breaching of copyright will go up. I think we should make it very clear that this bill is not about protecting copyright at all; it is about protecting the licence rights of especially American big business. 
Why was this bill brought in in the first place? It was to do with in the Government’s own words the US 301 Watch List. It had nothing to do with the fact that our copyright laws are poor. There is nothing wrong with our copyright laws. If there was why is the Minister not amending the Copyright Act? She is not amending that Act; she is amending this Act. This bill was not brought in because our copyright laws are poor; it was brought in because by our allowing parallel importing overseas copyright owners and local exclusive licensees were placed in the same position as the New Zealand originators of unique or branded material—that is they had to enforce their rights themselves. They could not get protection from the Government. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens support this bill. It does not give all the protection we might like to small bookstores and small record stores around our community but it does give protection to local cinemas. New Zealanders go to the movies in large numbers. Cinemas have worked hard to combat first television then DVDs and they have done it fairly successfully. Many have suggested that viewers should be able to decide for themselves whether they watch a movie at home or on the screen in a theatre. They can do both but they may have to wait a little longer to watch it at home. 
We would contend that the movie experience and that of watching a DVD at home are different experiences. We can do one activity in the privacy of our own homes which just cements in alienation from the community. The other activity takes us out into the community. Protecting cinemas is about protecting the community. Going to the movies is an affordable social outing—an opportunity to mix with other human beings. It is more than just watching a film on a big screen. Being with other people is an important part of belonging. Sharing experiences is the stuff of communities. Many cinemas have bars and restaurants attached so that movie going is an even more interesting experience. Cinemas are meeting places. This bill protects interesting experiences. It protects the ability to go to the movies. In some urban shopping centres cinemas are another excuse for patronising the local shops. They are an important element in local economies at a time when malls shopping chains and big block stores have made the survival of neighbourhood shopping centres tenuous at best. The bill protects that important area of neighbourhood. 
So what has all of that to do with the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill? Why could we not just have both? Some folk given the choice are likely to rent a video and sit at home with a friend and watch it on the box and as large-screen televisions take on the numbers who stay at home are likely to make the survival of cinemas—particularly the smaller suburban and rural variety—even more uncertain. The bill gives some certainty to cinemas. 
When movies first come out the new prints are expensive. The large chains can afford to buy those expensive prints. They have larger auditoriums larger audiences and larger runs. The rural cinemas and smaller suburban cinemas are not able to afford them and this bill gives a window so that those small threatened rural and suburban cinemas can survive. Why should we not let the market decide? I ask why we should run the risk. The market has a place but if there is a chance that stripping away the rules might also strip away choice and undermine important community assets and experiences we ask again why we should run the risk. This bill helps to lessen that risk. 
The bill makes liability for infringement dependent on the defendant knowing that the goods in question were not infringing copies. That to me sounds like good business sense. Why would we not take that precaution? When we take on a product to sell why would we not make sure that it was legitimate? That sounds to me like a reasonable thing to do and a much simpler option. I imagine that it is what most prudent business people do. 
I have been aware for some time of the problems with cinemas. I have a friend who has built and run cinemas and I know that the threat of DVDs to cinemas is real. The marketplace is appropriate for making some decisions but this is a situation in which the community has a right to expect us to make decisions that give it another measure of protection. Tony Ryall says he wants to buy a DVD for his kids for Christmas. I say he should take his kids to the cinema and buy the DVD next Christmas or for a birthday present—he will get the chance. He also says rich people can import DVDs. I tell him that that is a little patronising. The rules apply to everybody. Anybody can import DVDs directly for himself or herself. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: But can you afford them? That’s the point. 
MIKE WARD 
: Well if someone cannot afford a DVD it is not the end of a child’s childhood. As one who brought up his children without DVDs I say that their lives have not been horribly blighted. This bill does not undermine childhood— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s what you say. 
MIKE WARD 
: I can promise the member that. Deborah Coddington has said that American big business is protected by this bill. I tell members that American big business will do well with or without the bill. This is important legislation. It is a protection of community assets.