New Copyright Law Would Affect Nz Music Biz

This story was prepared by John Ferguson in Auckland, New Zealand, and Christie Eliezer in Sydney.



As the new year dawned, the subject of copyright legislation occupied the minds of key players in the music industries of New Zealand and Australia.

New legislation brought before the New Zealand parliament Dec. 17, 2002, by the government would provide a partial ban on parallel imports of films on video but stops short of offering similar protection for music.

A separate proposal from the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development recommends the 1994 Copyright Act be changed, allowing consumers to make one copy of any sound recording. Following any submissions to the ministry on the discussion document proposing amendments to the act, a final report will be prepared later this year before the government decides on draft legislation.

Terence O'Neill-Joyce, CEO of labels body the Recording Industry Assn. of New Zealand (RIANZ), is against the copying amendment. "People have been home recording for years," he says. "But [the issue is] about the determination of what constitutes a legal copy, and we don't need any more blurring. It's hard enough as it is to get law enforcement to act."

That view is echoed by Roger Harper, Auckland-based CEO of 25-outlet national music retail chain CD Store/Planet Jack. "I don't think we would support [this proposal]," he says. "It just creates a gray area about what is legal and what's not."

The Dec. 17 legislation, the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill 2002, would prohibit the import of films on DVD, VHS, and video-CD into New Zealand for nine months after a title's first international release. In 1998 the Copyright Act was amended, allowing overseas product to be imported without the consent of local copyright owners; since then, the creative businesses have lobbied to have their products made exempt. But while the government accepts that parallel importing has harmed the local film and video industries, it says there is no compelling evidence that music is suffering similarly.

Few New Zealand music retailers currently import DVDs, although mass merchant the Warehouse—the country's biggest music retailer—parallel-imports some low-price music compilations. Indeed, many say they have no desire to see music subject to the same exemptions as DVD, arguing that because local labels know merchants can legally import, they work harder on marketing their own product. The RIANZ insists parallel importing makes it easier for pirate products to come on the market.

According to the New Zealand government's Associate Commerce Minister, Judith Tizard, the new legislation addresses domestic and international concerns about copyright infringement. It contains, she notes, "changes to the 'onus of proof,' targeted at those works that are most vulnerable to piracy, namely films, computer programs, and sound recordings."

O'Neill-Joyce concedes, "[That] is a very positive move. [Under the terms of the bill,] a person who is bringing in potentially infringing products has got to prove that he has a right to bring it into New Zealand; that will make life a lot easier for us."

The bill will be discussed in parliament during its current term. Tizard says the New Zealand government will continue to monitor the effects of parallel importing on the music industry.

Meanwhile, in Australia, a coalition of copyright owners, including the Australian Music Publishers Assn., the Australasian Performing Right Assn., the Screen Producers Assn. of Australia, and the Australian Writers Guild, is lobbying the government to introduce a levy on all blank recording media, to compensate them for home copying. Under current law, all home copying is illegal, although consumers making copies for private use are not prosecuted.

In return for the levy, the coalition recommends that the Copyright Act be changed, allowing consumers to make noncommercial copies for personal use. In the early 1990s, a proposal to place a levy on audio tapes was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court. To get around that, it is proposed that consumers copying non-copyright material (for example, their own wedding ceremony) could claim a refund.

But the Australian Record Industry Assn. (ARIA) will not support the proposed levy—ARIA has long insisted it is an ineffective way of combating piracy—and the Australian Retailers Assn. claims the cost of collection would outweigh any benefits.