Shanks Katrina: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18101] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take another call tonight and continue this debate on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. When I spoke earlier I said this was a difficult—oh our officials have joined us. I acknowledge them for the hard work they put into this bill for the patience and perseverance they had with some of the Commerce Committee members in coming to terms with what file sharing is and for the displays and the enthusiasm they showed in trying to get us to understand how when someone file shares they can get lots of little bits from everyone else’s computers pull it all together and that is the file that is shared. It takes a bit for someone who was not brought up in the generation of file sharing to understand it. Even though I had a computer in the first job I had so I have always worked with computers technology changes. It shows just how fast people are left behind. My children would love to hear me say that. I always tell them I know exactly what they are doing all the time and that I am like Big Brother and they cannot do anything I do not know about. In fact they can do a lot I do not know about and what scares me is what I do not know. It is until we have legislation like this in front of us that we actually become aware of how fast technology moves and how fast we can get left behind. 
In earlier debate I talked heavily about the Internet service provider warning notices and how the committee had a big debate on that and the provision to terminate or suspend someone’s account with an Internet service provider an Internet service provider like Telecom or XTRA if they broke the law and did some file sharing. I do not think people can accidentally file share—that is the thing. If people are going to file share they have to have the file-sharing programs. They cannot accidentally share someone else’s files unless they have the software on their computer. To do that they have to have made a decision as to the type of system they themselves will use to obtain files. I do not think people understand it is illegal to file share. If people do it they are undermining the musicians the artists and everybody else because they are not legally paying for the file they are receiving. 
It is interesting how software develops over time as well. It is so common and I had no idea that the software was so common. I did a little search on Google on Jonathan Young’s iPad beside me. In fact that is technology in itself. We had a good talk about the use of wireless locations especially down at the Wellington waterfront where there is free wireless Internet. If someone has a laptop down there a free wireless connection is available. Someone could be using third-generation technology for example—well third-generation is not quite right but someone could be using the wireless connection down there and could be logged on to someone else’s system. If that person shared some files illegally who is liable for that? Technology is moving so fast and now people joke with me that I do not have an iPad but just a little old laptop that takes about 20 minutes to open. When I am still waiting to log on the guys beside me have instant emails on their iPads and they say: “What’s that old thing you’ve got there—that old big box?”. Of course it is a laptop that normally takes 20 minutes to log on. They have done all their work and have gone. 
Technology has changed and it is hard to make legislation that does not age fast but stays current. That is why I am a big advocate of principle-based legislation where technology may change but the principle stays the same in respect of what the legislation is trying to achieve. It was really interesting to talk about what youth are doing how we can educate them on what they can and cannot do with their computers what the most effective way to do that is and the campaigns we can run. How many users are aware that what they are doing is right or wrong? It is really hard to be heavy-handed to begin with and to say we will terminate or suspend an Internet connection on a first offence or a second offence when users have to learn what they can and cannot do and what their boundaries are. So what do I and other parents do in Ohariu which has one of the highest levels of Internet use in the country? What do we do when a parent has a child who is file sharing and that parent like me is not quite aware of what file sharing is and then all of a sudden that parent’s Internet connection might get suspended? Well that is really good! So that parent will talk to the child and try to educate them but then the child may try to sneak something past the parent a second time— 
Jonathan Young 
: You could smack them! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I am not even going to repeat what that member said to me about what he would do if the child did it a second time. If the child did it a second time once again the parent could go in and say: “You can’t do this. We are going to lose our ISP.” If it happens a third time the connection could be terminated and the whole house is affected. So there is a line and a balance between what is right and what is wrong and where the legislation can provide for suspension of an Internet connection. The situation will be interesting and we will watch it really closely. We will watch it and the stakeholders will watch it. The Ministry of Economic Development will work on it and watch it over a period of time to see whether we can get some change just through education and issuing notices. It will be really interesting to watch. 
My colleague Jonathan Young talked about a survey that was done and I want to talk through some of the statistics that came out of that survey. This survey was done by TelstraClear of 1048 Kiwi Internet users aged between 18 and 70 like Jonathan Young was saying. When we are talking about such a wide range of people we have to wonder about what type of software they have on their computers and what they are aware of and what they are not aware of. I know that my father-in-law for example is very computer-aware but I also know that siblings come in and fiddle around with his computer. They load software on it and put their own little fixes on it when it falls over. I am sure he is not always sure about what software he has on his computer and I think the same thing happens even for my generation. My son tries to do fixes on my personal computers—not my work computers Parliamentary Service will be pleased to know. He tries to do fixes and goes through a backdoor which I always assume requires him to take screws off and undo the back of it but obviously he does not. It is like an information technology backdoor that he talks about which I have no idea about. It is hard to know what type of software we have on our computer at the end of the day. 
The results of the survey are even more interesting: 46 percent of households interviewed had peer-to-peer file-sharing software on their computer. I thought that was a huge percentage—I could not even imagine 46 percent of those people interviewed knowing what peer-to-peer file-sharing actually was. The survey said 48 percent believed that the prospect of being caught by police and fined was the most effective legal tool in trying to deter copyright infringers. That is pretty harsh but it is interesting they thought that. The disconnection of broadband for repeat offenders was thought to be effective by 43 percent and I would think that is where most people would be. For more than 50 percent neither measure was significant enough to stop illegal downloading. Music was the most copied content at 82 percent followed by software at 49 percent movies at 35 percent and games at 31 percent. Those interviewed thought that content copying was widespread and most planned to do it only occasionally. The survey said 32 percent claimed to copy music more than once a month while 23 percent used iTunes a legal online source. It is interesting to see the types of statistics that emerge when Internet users are surveyed on what they are doing and what they are not doing. 
This legislation is a good step in the right direction. We have a compromise. The Commerce Committee worked hard. It is important we have principle-based legislation so that it can move with the times and is not caught up in the very fast-moving environment we are in. Nobody knows what is around the corner. This legislation is a step in the right direction. If it is monitored closely and is ensured to be working effectively then it will stay in place for a period of time. Thank you.