Martin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11468. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. The title of the bill on the Table is the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The provisions it is altering were originally in an Act called the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003. I have some questions as to what has happened to the “Onus of Proof” part of the original legislation and how that will be addressed by this amendment. But perhaps that will be dealt with at a later time.New Zealand First supported this provision at its first introduction in 2003. New Zealand First supported the provision’s retention in 2008 just as we supported the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act which also includes a 9-month ban on copyright infringements. But times change and inside the world of digital technology times change very very quickly.If I can just make sure that we all understand what the original Act did that we are amending here this evening. The provisions of the original Act meant that no one other than the producers of a new film or their licensed distributors was able to import into New Zealand any copies of that new film for a period of time following its public release anywhere in the world. This law covers all commercial films regardless of their format. Private individuals were and are still able to buy these films from overseas in whatever form via the internet and bring them in for their own use. The restriction on parallel importation was and is directed essentially at commercial distributors.The original 9-month period—in this legislation there is a 5-month period suggested—for new films was selected as an appropriate period within which copyright owners and cinema operators could derive an economic return on the cinematic release of these films. New Zealand First wishes to acknowledge that it is recorded that film exhibitors employ approximately 10000 New Zealanders directly and indirectly another 21000 New Zealanders gain employment from contributing industries. We want to acknowledge that a major driver for the staggered protection was the viability of cinemas and perhaps more specifically the protection of rural cinema owners. New Zealand First most certainly supports all those in our very stressed rural economies.Much of this viability was based around the fact that the major film producers in the US—as has already been mentioned—release their new films in time for the US summer spring or Thanksgiving breaks. These do not directly align with the New Zealand school term breaks where the maximum audience participation happens. This is where historically cinemas have made the profits that sustain them over the quieter weeks of the year. It is during those quieter weeks that they show New Zealand films such asThis Way of Life  and have film festivals. It would be a concern if cinemas closed or chose not to show the sometimes less profitable New Zealand films as this would have a downstream effect on that section of our artistic community.The definition of films covered by these measures relates to those intended for commercial release having been specifically amended during the passage of the original legislation to exclude films intended for educational distribution. The 2003 legislation had a sunset clause provision that enacted in 2008. The Act was renewed by the Labour Government with another sunset clause of October 2013 hence we are here today.Coupled with the delay to parallel importation was a provision to protect against the imports of counterfeit films sound recordings and computer programs. Infringement would occur if the importer knew or ought to have reasonably known that the imported item was an infringing copy—a counterfeit copy. The onus of proof was reversed at the 2003 introduction with imported copies being presumed to infringe in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is up to the importer to prove that the parallel imports are not pirated copies. Where has that protection gone? Or is that protection being retained under the original Act even while this new one amends it? If we could have clarity onthat that would be really great. This is part unfortunately of the problem of only just seeing the legislation and not having an opportunity to discuss this deeper.This part of the legislation this protection around counterfeiting was essentially technology-driven. The ability to mass-produce identical perfect copies at the push of a button made it much harder to distinguish counterfeit copies from genuine copies that had been parallel imported.New Zealand First wants to recognise that both of the areas covered by the original Act still have merit. This was witnessed as I mentioned earlier by our clear support for this legislation in 2003 and 2008 but whether it is now necessary is the question. New Zealand First sees print media comments along the lines of: “Cinema attendance numbers have shown strong growth in recent years due to the explosion of multiplex venues …”. When we look at rural cinemas to gauge their survival we look at examples such the Matakana cinema complex which services my local community or the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre with its investment in a new screen which gives a sharper picture and 3-D format projection equipment. We see the innovative way that film exhibitors have risen to the challenge of DVD and Blu-ray remembering that the current Act has never stopped a New Zealander from going online to purchase copies of new release films from overseas for personal use and to view in their own homes.New Zealand First believes that through the initiatives such as Imax 3-D showings and exceptionally civilised introduction of premium showings where large comfortable chairs and outstanding glasses of New Zealand wine are available to an appropriately mature audience cinemas have created a sellable experience that may now be countering what were very real dangers to their viability back in 2003.As a mother of three teenagers I would also go so far as to say that it could be argued that it is the DVD manufacturers who now have to create a point of difference for this generation to compete with the cinema experience which is now to many of today’s younger generation just as it was to the generation of the 1950s and the 1960s the place to go with mates. In my research for this speech I spoke to students from the 1960s who told me of going along with a gaggle of mates and sitting through four movies in a row after a day of study at Auckland University. I recognise in that story the number of times that I have ferried my own 15-year-old son to the local cinema to meet up with his gaggle of school friends where they watch a Sunday movie and then adjourn to the neighbouring ice cream parlour until ready to call the mum and dad taxi to collect them.We will be interested—we will be very interested—if this bill passes this reading to see the select committee report and its conversations around these topics. Should this Act gain enough support to pass the first reading we would suggest that the select committee consider section 35(2)(b) of the Copyright Act. This section stipulates that courts must not require a defendant of copyright infringement charges to reveal its source of product in circumstances where it would be unreasonable for it to do so. In normal court proceedings for copyright infringement revealing the source of the product would be an expected outcome of the discovery process. For the conflicting reasons verbalised above New Zealand First will be abstaining from voting on this bill.