Ward Mike: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ward Mike: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4654] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 We are a country of movie-goers. I recall speaking to a friend of mine who started a cinema in Nelson. He said that Nelson was exceeded by only one other city in the world as far as attendance at movies is concerned and that was Singapore. So Nelson is probably reflective of much of New Zealand. We like going to the movies. In fact we are a particularly cultured country in all sorts of ways. We are great consumers and producers of culture and as such we should respect that and take all reasonable steps to protect the cultural property embodied in those cultural experiences. 
Most of the time we have little difficulty recognising that value and accepting that there is a reasonable expectation that copyright and ownership will be protected. Usually copying is less than straightforward for most of the arts and that in itself offers considerable protection from copying and it is a deterrent to copiers. Clearly with films and modern technology reproduction is possible by a range of means that is easily accessible to do-it-yourselfers and even more accessible to the sophisticated and the greedy. With most art forms the initial production—be it music the written word or fine art—is a relatively simple and inexpensive process. They are difficult to copy but easy to do. But movies are extraordinarily expensive to produce and extremely easy to copy. When it comes to movies even the most modest titles are likely to be costed in the millions or at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and making money on movies is a fraught business at the best of times. However pirating movies does not just deprive the investors and movie makers of the value of the pirated products. If those pirated products come on to the market before the movies have been released—and not just into the metropolitan cinemas but into the provincial and rural movie houses—then the viability of those provincial and rural operations is undermined and the opportunity for people outside the major cities is threatened. The likelihood of people making money out of their movies is undermined as well. 
Although many New Zealanders will still prefer to see their flicks on the big screen there is a minority who would given the chance hire the video take it home and skip the trip to the movies. They are likely to represent the difference between breaking even and making a loss. Does it matter? Well if it means that some films may not get made it matters. If it means that some New Zealanders are deprived of the cinema experience which is as much a part of the New Zealand culture as Saturday morning netball or meat pies in baches at the beach then it matters. 
Is it reasonable that the onus is on the importer to prove that the imports are legit? I think so. The legislation is thin on detail as to what form the proof should take but I do not imagine that copyright holders will have too much difficulty devising appropriate documentation and authentication procedures. The alternative runs the risk of yet another layer of bureaucracy. We Greens will be supporting the bill because a trip to the movies can be a magic experience and a magic experience cannot be replicated on the box in the corner of the living room. It needs the space the crowds the popcorn and the ice cream. It is an experience that the folk in Motueka and Masterton are as deserving of as the folk in Queen Street and Courtenay Place. It is an experience in an industry that ought not to be threatened by the greedy and the dishonest who would seek to steal and profit from the creative endeavours and experiences of others.