Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15236] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I thank members of the Committee for the very constructive approach that has been taken to what is—as Mr Dail Jones said—rather delayed legislation. 
This legislation affects myriad interests of both New Zealanders and people internationally who are owners and users of copyright that may have been created or is available in New Zealand. It is a vast three-dimensional jigsaw that has huge effects on a range of people whom we may be able to predict but also sometimes on people whose interests are not predicted in this legislation. I think it is useful that we try to take a very non - party-political approach to this legislation and I compliment the Committee and the select committee on the attempts that have been made to get to grips with this very technical difficult and conflicting legislation. 
I particularly want to thank Chris Finlayson. I thought his contribution was very constructive. In the second reading of this bill he called for a full review of the Copyright Act and I reiterate my point that because of the complexity of the issue and the vast number of people and interests involved this legislation—this whole area—has to evolve. People’s ordinary lives businesses innovations and research depend on our being predictable in this area whatever we do. 
The first issue that Chris Finlayson raised related to the new term “communication work”. The new category of “communication work” would not create protections for transmissions regardless of any creative input because as in any other type of copyright the work is still required to be original. The current definition in the bill reported back by the select committee would extend protection to signals that carry content in interactive or on-demand communications but that was an unintended consequence which is addressed by Supplementary Order Paper 193. I hope that reassures Chris Finlayson on that particular issue. 
My colleague Dave Hereora made a very useful contribution relating to the new area of “educational resource supplier” in Supplementary Order Paper 193 and I agree that this is akin to what we understand libraries had done in the past and will do in different ways in the future. Where there are electronic or digital communications programmes or creations of whatever sort it is necessary for our schools universities and research institutes to have access to those. Increasingly they are available only in digital format; they are not available in book form. One of the people who has been consulted on this legislation said that in his particular area of research anything in a book is probably 10 or 15 years out of date anything in a magazine is probably 3 or 4 years out of date and papers on the Internet are the only way of keeping current in his field. We have to recognise this in terms of teaching our new curriculum and making sure that New Zealanders have access to the most recent innovations thoughts and projections. The new category of “educational resource supplier” makes it clear that the intermediary may be a company or an organisation that is not in the first instance what we understand to be a library. 
Supplementary Order Paper 193 deals with a range of other issues and I will deal with those more specifically. In terms of the limitations around protections for Internet service provider organisations—those that provide Internet supplies—there had to be a provision and a process whereby information that was put up on the Internet in breach of copyright law could be taken down. I recognise the Green Party’s concern. Its members were particularly concerned about the issue of the use of copyright material in fair comment and/or satire or parody. We have been very happy to give an undertaking to Nandor Tanczos the Green spokesperson in this area that we will conduct a review looking at what happens particularly in Australia which has recently changed its legislation to come into line with that of the United States I think as a result of its relatively new free-trade agreement with the US. The Australian legislation makes provision for a specific exemption for copyright infringement for the purpose of parody and satire. I understand that it follows the US law. There is currently no specific exemption in the United Kingdom although there is a recommendation to create an exception to copyright for the purpose of caricature parody or pastiche and that was made in the 2006 UK  
Gowers 
 Review of Intellectual Property 
. The US has a more general “fair use” exception which would probably mean that in most situations parody and fair comment would not amount to a breach of copyright. We want to look as these examples carefully and any amendments required to implement any changes arising out of that review which I assure members across the Chamber will be a public discussion can be included in the next proposed amendment to the Copyright Act. As I have already indicated this bill is one of a series as we evolve copyright and the specific issue that so far we have agreed to include in that legislation is around the commissioning rule. I hope that that may give some reassurance to the Green Party on that issue. 
The Green Party members’ concern around format shifting more generally was that they wanted to see video content included. We have made a policy decision not to do that. I think it is generally agreed across the film and video industry in New Zealand that it would prefer more protection. We recognise as Dail Jones said that like much of the advanced world much of New Zealand has moved on to forms of reproduction for music and/or video or films in some cases where format shifting is necessary. But we do not think it is useful to say that people may make or pass on digital copies because of the economic damage that can so easily be done. As we saw one unscrupulous employee of a post-production house took a copy of  
Sione’s 
 Wedding 
. Huge economic damage can be done to film makers who in New Zealand are pretty vulnerable; they do not have the back-up of big studios or big profits from earlier films. No matter how much we would like to believe otherwise New Zealand film—having made an extraordinary difference to our tourism industry for example—has not yet got the economic robustness to cope with the sort of damage that can quickly be done by the ability to transmit digital copies. 
Gordon Copeland spoke about the issues around the right to replay free-to-air television and I thank the Committee and the select committee before it for the consideration that has been given to that. At present it can be dealt with commercially. I am very opposed to enshrining any right to rebroadcast. I agree with Mr Copeland that as a Government and as New Zealanders we desire to see New Zealanders having the greatest access to the greatest amount of information but I think the idea that we could enforce a commercial right over an unwilling seller would be abhorrent. So I am opposed to the extension that Gordon Copeland’s Supplementary Order Paper would give to section 88 and I recognise that this is an issue that members will have to deal with in greater detail when we get to the point where there is a clear choice about the way that free-to-air television should be rebroadcast in a digital format. 
I thank members for their serious comment on this bill. We have several more parts to consider so I will leave my comments at that. I am very happy to have a debate in this Chamber tonight on this legislation. One of the healthier things we do in the House is to deliberate when people are trying to find a way forward rather than coming in here with predetermined views that are sometimes as Mr Copeland bewailed political. Of course politics is how we do things in this House rather than shooting each other and I think that is a good thing.