Katene Rahui: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18091] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to speak on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill which deals with the concept of file sharing. In most cases the Maori Party would advocate that the art of sharing is a practice we endorse but in this case sharing takes on the more negative meaning—what is described as unauthorised sharing which I guess in street talk might also be called pinching or theft. File sharing is about the transfer of material usually music movies or software via the Internet between two points usually two Internet users. Sharing of copyright works often occurs without the authorisation of the copyright owner and that is illegal. This bill is to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. It aims to deter file sharing that infringes copyright deter and educate the public about the problem compensate copyright owners for damage sustained through file sharing by widening the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal to award damages provide sanctions for serious copyright infringers and limit Internet service provider liability that may result from account holders infringing files. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill throughout its remaining stages. Our research tells us that the creative industries are being massacred by illegal sharing overseas and the same trends are very clearly starting to emerge here in New Zealand. We also know that there are an estimated 4698 Maori directly employed in the creative industries which are the most impacted by illegal file-sharing and that does not include people in indirect employment such as lawyers or accountants. Take for instance local performing artists such as Stan Walker Maisey Rika or Bic Runga. Like most artists they will be affected by illegal downloading and file-sharing. Illegal downloading and file-sharing has resulted in a loss of income for the majority of local artists and that has made it increasingly difficult for New Zealand artists to earn a living by making music in this country. That is despite the fact that excitement and interest in new local musical artists is higher than ever. Illegal downloading and file-sharing means that record copies are generating less revenue which in turn means that we have fewer resources to invest in new New Zealand artists. 
In our consultation with various Maori involved in the industry we were told it would be a huge drawback for copyright-holders to chase up infringement because most copyright-holders are people who work on their own with no infrastructure no administrative support and no coffers full of money to pay for the work required to do so. We were also told that no industry can sustain itself on a free model nor can creators make a living if what they create is free. The bill then goes a long way to deterring illegal file-sharing. Even from the limited and selective consultation process we have been through we know that Maori artists absolutely support this bill as they believe it will have a positive impact on the ability of local artists to earn a living as musicians. 
We note also the advice of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand known as RIANZ. The association represents 60 major and independent record companies more than 1100 New Zealand recording artists and producers and over 95 percent of commercially released recorded music in New Zealand. It told the Commerce Committee that the direct impact file sharing has on the record industry and its recording artists including local New Zealand labels and artists is substantial. Sales figures for the New Zealand music industry including New Zealand and international artists show that for the period from 2001 to 2009 the total value of album and individual track audio sales dropped from $119 million to less than $70 million per year. That seems a staggering reduction in sales which essentially is at the core of the problem being addressed by this bill. 
There was also some heartening evidence during the select committee stage that some basic interventions could make a significant difference. Judge David Harvey shared the results of the Synovate survey  
Movie File Sharing Amongst Young New Zealanders 
 which found that more than 70 percent of respondents in New Zealand would cease infringing activities if they received a letter from their Internet service provider. All it takes is a good old-fashioned letter. This finding has been corroborated by a similar survey in France in 2008 which found that 90 percent of users would stop illegal file-sharing after two warnings from their Internet service provider. 
There are some other relevant issues we want to raise in the debate. As we know technology changes so rapidly that a bill such as this one could well be obsolete in a year or two as Internet sharks find new platforms and channels that get around laws such as this one. Vesting the entire Internet copyright issue in regulation will ensure that the rules for such offences can be changed quickly to keep up with the changing online landscape. 
Finally I will just touch on the two major changes recommended by the select committee that we believe do not support the general intent of the bill. We suggest that suspension is not proportionate to the crime as most people would cease illegal downloading after the first or second notice and it takes a particularly belligerent person to ignore three warnings from an Internet service provider. The second change is to allow lawyers into the tribunal. This defeats the whole purpose of this bill because a situation will inevitably arise where everyone will “lawyer up” at the tribunal hearings. All that will do is exacerbate the current problem that the cost of litigation exceeds the likely payout from taking someone to court. We do not support these changes recommended by the select committee. 
However we are supportive of the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper which largely appears to be about clarifying arrangements with the Copyright Tribunal. We believe that it is a good thing that the Supplementary Order Paper clarifies that the Copyright Tribunal should not automatically presume that infringements of copyright have been committed by an account holder simply because of an infringement notice. In other words this is akin to the concept that people are innocent before the law until proven guilty so to speak. More important the Supplementary Order Paper helps to clarify the process and substance of a tribunal proceeding as it applies to this issue. It also amends the Copyright Act 1994 by increasing the number of members who sit on the tribunal from three to five. One might question the increase. We hope it is to ensure that the new member will have knowledge of tikanga Maori be confident in the application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be well informed about the implications of Wai 262—the flora and fauna claim. The Maori Party will support this bill.