Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9411] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call and speak in support of this bill. First of all I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee Mark Peck for all the work he put into this bill the officials for the tremendous amount of support they gave the select committee and for the work they put into the bill as well. 
Generally New Zealand First is supportive of this bill as it updates the Copyright Act to bring it into line with rapidly changing technology and film formats. Since the introduction of the Copyright Act in 1994 we have seen an expansion of VHS videos video CDs and the introduction of DVDs. We have seen the development of the Internet to levels that were not imagined in 1994. We have seen the introduction of electronic books and the expansion of parallel imports. Parallel imports have grown beyond all expectations particularly the parallel importation of films for distribution and rental prior to cinematic release in New Zealand helped by the development of the Internet. That has resulted in a decline in cinema patronage and in the New Zealand film industry. 
This bill provides a ban on parallel imports of films including DVDs VHS videos and video CDs for a period of 9 months from the time the title is released internationally. It is important that we realise that it is from the time the film is released internationally. We are lucky that  
The Return of the King 
 the final in the triology of  
The Lord of the Rings  
is to be released internationally here at the end of next month. Genuine authorised licence-holders are allowed to distribute DVDs and videos of that film from the date it is released internationally. If they choose to release them on the day the film is presented internationally then they are entitled to do so. The 9-month ban does not restrict the distribution of DVDs through the authorised licence-holder. 
In its submission the New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors Association expressed concern about the unrestricted parallel importation of films DVDs and videos and supported the 9-month ban on the parallel importation of film. The bill’s original intention was to protect cinematic distribution from the release of the DVD and other formats. However in its present form the bill allows the authorised distributor the right to determine those protections and when the release will take place. 
This ban—and it was not mentioned during the Committee stage which I was quite surprised about—lapses after 5 years. The assumption is that technologies and the means of distribution will have changed dramatically in that 5-year period. But a lot of the equipment still around today for the general distribution of film is many years old. I suggest that any projection equipment that has been purchased in the last 5 years will have another 10 15 or 20 years of life left in it and therefore the 5-year lapse period is a bit optimistic. 
We received submissions expressing concern that a large proportion of region 1 catalogue films have not been released in New Zealand and are being restricted by the local distributor. That means that local distributors control the release of those products and therefore they are managing to restrict the distribution of those films and sound recordings because they are not allowing those catalogues to be distributed in New Zealand. Parallel importers can if they wish get a licence to import those catalogues but many of them do not have the opportunity because of the restrictions put on them by the authorised distributor. 
In their submissions learning institutions expressed concern that although they are able to parallel-import electronic books journals and other films and DVDs they run into the problem of a sound clip or movie clip embedded within electronic books that has not been officially released in New Zealand and is within the 9-month period of international release. Under this bill they are not allowed to distribute that film within their learning institute as freely as they would like. As a result of that restriction they are then forced to rely on importation through the authorised licensee who might well restrict the time period in which they are allowed to show it and that would certainly add considerable cost to the importation of that sound bite. It might be only a portion within a particular e-book or e-magazine imported by the institution but it was a major concern. 
The bill changes the onus of proof to the importer of the films DVDs videos CDs and sound recordings compelling him or her to prove that those items were not infringing copies. In other words those people are assumed to be guilty until they prove that they have received those items from a legitimate source. The concern here was that those importers are running a legitimate business importing from legitimate parallel-importers and have done so for many years. I suggest that the likes of the Warehouse could be in that position. It could quite easily be stopped from importing some of its goods simply by an authorised licensee stating—without any proof or evidence just the suggestion—that he or she believed that some of those goods were pirated. That would make the Warehouse guilty until it proved it was innocent. Yet it would have been parallel-importing from legitimate sources for a long time and have had no intention of importing pirated goods. But this bill puts that inference there and it could make the Warehouse guilty. 
In winding up I want to say that New Zealand First supports this bill simply because it updates the old bill with the new technologies and brings it into line with modern technology.