Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12628] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is complex and difficult legislation and I hear with regret from Mr Deputy Speaker that I have only 6 minutes to speak on what is material of substantial academic and intellectual interest. So I am going to skid over the top of the challenging issues the Commerce Committee faced when it looked at this bill. 
I think that in very general terms one can say that copyright is a property right that exists in original works and the Copyright Act 1994 gave to copyright owners exclusive rights that allowed them to control certain aspects of a work’s exploitation while at the same time provided limited exceptions to those rights for copyright users. One of the events that characterised the progress of the bill before the Commerce Committee was the appointment of expert advisers which I think in this setting is something to be very much encouraged. Not only does it allow officials from the Government to offer a policy input to legislation but with the appointment of expert advisers it sets up a foil so that the practical ramifications the ramifications from a commercial perspective can be looked at and considered by the select committee. In that way I think the chances of having workable legislation are significantly enhanced. 
The select committee made a number of changes. 
Shane Jones 
: What about the universities? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I will come back to the point Mr Jones has made. I know he will make a very substantial contribution to this debate and I look forward to that. But as he settles back in his seat I do not sense that the time for that contribution from him has quite yet come. 
The sorts of issues we looked at and the sorts of issues we decided were appropriately to be changed touched these areas. First of all there is the issue of copying for educational purposes. Then there is the issue of storing information for educational purposes. In that same context there is an issue of copying by librarians and archivists for replacement. There are conditions for libraries and archives in making and supplying digital copies. There are issues relating to observing studying or testing computer programs and the response of the select committee to that particular issue was to recommend the insertion of a new section to clarify that a lawful user of a computer program may observe study or test the functioning of a program under certain circumstances. 
But it became tricky—there were issues of conflict or division—certainly in one area and that is the area of what are called communication works. We looked at that against the background of submissions we received on issues such as format shifting for personal use time shifting free public playing or showing of a communication work simultaneous with reception and reception and retransmission of broadcasts in cable programme services. 
I should say something about the latter because I think that that debate is still very much alive. It will be visited in the Committee of the whole House when we look at issues arising there because National agreed to support the passage of this bill only with some reservations. One of the issues that National certainly strongly held out on concerned the provisions in the so-called section 88 which is the topic I have just touched on. The provisions deal with the rebroadcast of free-to-air television over cable networks. The bill makes it clear that the reception and delivery of any such rebroadcast must be in the original format of the free-to-air TV programme. 
I have referred to that issue of cable networks but we know that cable networks have not yet taken off in this country. That is significant because Mr Gordon Copeland an Independent member in this Parliament has produced a Supplementary Order Paper that would clearly give significant life to section 88. He is seeking to extend the provision of section 88 to satellite rebroadcast or simulcast free-to-air television programming. That is quite significant. It has impacts for Television New Zealand and Sky television. It is fair to say that there has been a degree of lobbying around those issues but the Supplementary Order Paper is one issue that I think will be quite significant in the Committee of the whole House. 
The second issue which has been raised by a number of parties since this bill was reported back relates to Internet service provider obligations. In this world we are looking to compare our stance on complex issues of copyright across the board with the stance that other nations have taken—most particularly Australia Canada and the US. The sorts of issues that arise there are the requirement for a policy to terminate accounts of repeat copyright infringers the liability if users infringe copyright and the liability for storing infringing material. I think I have said enough to indicate that there is some complexity around these issues so I would like to go back—to retreat as it were—to a more simple position and to say in my remaining time what this bill is about and why it is needed. 
The bill makes amendments to the Copyright Act to take account of the impacts of new technology such as digital music and film. The bill tries to take account of those impacts while maintaining a balance between the often competing interests of creators owners and users of copyright works. The bill is really part of a wider reform or process developed to ensure that New Zealand’s intellectual property legislation is up to date takes account of international developments and is relevant in the 21st century. 
Sadly I sense that my time is up so I will close there. But I look forward to a heady and determined involvement when these issues come before the Committee of the whole House for the deliberation they are so clearly entitled to.