

Currently released so far... 12404 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
ASEC
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 07WELLINGTON138, GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND'S PUBLIC SUBMISSION FOR 2007
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07WELLINGTON138.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
07WELLINGTON138 | 2007-02-13 03:03 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Wellington |
VZCZCXRO5527
RR RUEHNZ
DE RUEHWL #0138/01 0440351
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 130351Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3864
INFO RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 1163
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 4728
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 0107
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 WELLINGTON 000138
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EB/IPE - JENNIFER BOGER and EAP/ANP - DAN RICCI
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR JENNIFER CHOE GROVES
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO
COMMERCE FOR CASSIE PETERS ITA/MAC/OIPR
E.O. 12985: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD ECON PREL NZ
SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND'S PUBLIC SUBMISSION FOR 2007
SPECIAL 301
REF: STATE 07944
¶1. On January 9, the United States Trade Representative submitted a
Federal Register notice inviting public submission on the practices
of U.S. trading partners to be reviewed under the Special 301
provisions of the 1974 Trade Act (as amended in 1988). On February
12, the Government of New Zealand asked Embassy Wellington to submit
New Zealand's formal response to Washington. The text of the GNZ's
submission begins at para 2. Embassy Wellington will report septel
on our own views on New Zealand's IPR enforcement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Begin Information provided by Government of New Zealand
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶2. The following information is provided by the New Zealand
Government to the US Trade Representative (USTR) in response to
USTR's call for public submissions, published in the Federal
Register on 9 January 2007, ahead of the annual interagency "Special
301" review to designate countries/economies that inadequately
protect or deny market access for US industries that rely on
intellectual property (IP).
Digital Copyright Bill
- - - - - - - - - - - -
¶3. The Digital Copyright Bill (or, more accurately, the Copyright
(New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill) was
introduced to Parliament and referred to the Commerce Select
Committee for consideration in December 2006. A copy of the Bill is
available at:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation
/Bills/b/2/a/b2ad626160694aee9536fab3362d7d15 .htm.
¶4. The Bill, if adopted, will amend the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act)
to clarify the application of existing rights and exceptions in the
digital environment and to take account of international
developments. The Bill also seeks to create a more
technology-neutral framework for the Act.
Patents Bill
- - - - - - -
¶5. The Patents Bill is now in the final stages of drafting and is
expected to be introduced to Parliament later in 2007. An exposure
draft of the Patents Bill was made public in December 2004. A copy
can be accessed at:
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____1315 .aspx
Parallel Importation
- - - - - - - - - - -
¶6. Parallel importing has been previously raised in the USTR
National Trade Estimate Report.
"Parallel importing" allows retailers, wholesalers and other parties
to obtain goods subject to IP rights directly from licensed or
authorized overseas sources, rather than dealing with local
suppliers, licensees or agents. In doing so, parallel importing
allows for competition between sources of the same or similar
goods.
¶7. Copyright is the IP right most commonly associated with parallel
importation, as parallel importing generally focuses on the
competitive supply of high demand consumer goods, which tend to be
copyright products. Imported goods are also subject to trade mark
protection where trade marks are affixed to the product or
packaging. Patent protection can apply to the operation of a device
(such as a CD player), and registered design protection can also be
an issue in relation to visual design features added to a device.
¶8. Parallel-imported goods are sometimes confused with pirated and
counterfeit goods. The association is not correct. Parallel imports
are goods that are manufactured and put into circulation in another
country either by, or with the consent of, the owner of the
applicable IP rights. In contrast, pirated and counterfeit goods
are infringing goods produced without the consent of the owner of
the IP right.
¶9. New Zealand allows parallel importation in certain defined
circumstances. The Copyright Act 1994 provides copyright owners
WELLINGTON 00000138 002 OF 006
with the exclusive right to "issue to the public", which means to
put copies of copyright works into circulation. Section 9(1) (d) of
the Copyright Act was inserted by the Copyright (Removal of the
Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998 to allow for
the parallel importing of non-infringing copies of a work into New
Zealand, by providing an exception to the right to issue copies to
the public .
¶10. The Trade Marks Act 2002 has also been amended (in 2003) to
state that a registered trade mark is not infringed by the use of
the trade mark (including in use for the purpose of advertising) in
relation to goods that have been put on the market anywhere in the
world under that trade mark by the owner or with his or her express
or implied consent. These amendments did not change the
applicability of other IP statutes, relating to patents and design
rights, to parallel imported goods.
¶11. In 2003, a partial ban on parallel importation of films
(including VHS, VCD and DVDs) was introduced. The Copyright
(Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003
reintroduced this partial ban by amending provisions of the Act,
relating to infringement by importation. The ban is on parallel
imports of films other than for the importer's private and domestic
use, within nine months of the film first being made available to
public, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere. The provision contains
a five year sunset clause and will be reviewed by 2008 to see if the
ban continues to be justified in light of technological
developments.
¶12. The 2003 amendment also shifted the evidentiary onus of proof to
the defendant in civil proceedings concerning whether the imported
goods in question are infringing copies. These changes only apply
to sound recordings, films and computer programs. The amendment
also changed the requirement that a defendant in civil proceedings
must "know or has reason to believe" to a requirement that the
defendant "knows or ought reasonably to know". This more objective
test makes it easier for right holders to make their case.
¶13. The 2003 amendment Act also clarified "rental rights" as they
apply to computer programs, sound recordings and films. This means
that copyright owners have the exclusive right to authorize the
rental of their works, including after they have been put into
circulation. As a result, video stores cannot rent out parallel
imported DVDs and videos etc, without permission of the copyright
owner.
¶14. The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") and the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ("the
Berne Convention"), to which both New Zealand and the US are
parties, do not constrain the parallel importation of legitimate
copyright materials.
Format shifting
- - - - - - - -
¶15. "Format shifting" is also an issue that has been identified in
the US National Trade Estimates Report.
Format shifting is a copyright issue. It simply refers to the
practice of copying material from one format to another, for
example, from CD to cassette tape or from CD to MP3 format.
¶16. Following a review of the Copyright Act 1994 to assess its
effectiveness in the digital environment, the Government approved a
range of amendments to the Act. In December 2005 Cabinet approved
the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment
Bill ("the Digital Copyright Bill") for introduction. The Bill was
introduced in Parliament in December 2006 and forwarded to
Parliament's Commerce Select Committee for consideration.
¶17. Among the amendments included in the Bill is an exception to
allow the owner of a legitimate sound recording to make one copy in
each format for his or her own private and domestic use. This is
known as the "format shifting" exception. The exception will
explicitly exclude making copies from borrowed or hired recordings,
or for other people.
¶18. The absence of an exception for format shifting also makes
law-breakers out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, many of whom are
unaware that format shifting their own CDs is against the law. On
the basis that users are unlikely to purchase the same work in more
than one format, it was concluded that there was not sufficient
evidence presented to suggest that copyright owners would suffer
WELLINGTON 00000138 003 OF 006
economic loss arising out of this exception.
¶19. If adopted, this carefully drafted format shifting exception
would comply with the Berne Three-Step Test and New Zealand's TRIPS
obligations concerning copyright exceptions. Specifically:
Step 1 - Confined to certain special cases: The proposed exception
would be clearly and carefully defined in the Act. It would only
apply to a narrow range of activity.
Step 2 - Not conflicting with a normal exploitation of the work:
There is not a substitution effect at work when the owner of a sound
recording format shifts that work into another format, as that
consumer is unlikely to purchase the same work in multiple formats.
The exception would only apply to private and domestic format
shifting by a single person who owns the legitimately acquired sound
recording. The proposed exception is, therefore, confined to a
scope and degree that does not enter into economic competition with
the ways that right holders normally extract economic value from
their rights.
Step 3 - Not unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of
the right holder: Prejudice to these legitimate interests caused by
an exception is not reasonable if it causes (or has the potential to
cause) an unreasonable loss of income. As noted above, there would
be no substitution of sale effect where narrow format shifting of
sound recordings is permitted, and thus there is no competition with
the original work.
¶20. New Zealand is aware that consumers in the US are able to format
shift music that they have legally purchased under the Audio Home
Recording Act 1992 ("the AHRA"). The AHRA provides immunity against
copyright infringement action, provided that the copying is
performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA.
A levy of these devices is then returned to copyright owners and
creators. It also seems likely that the broad "fair use" provision
in section 107 of the US Copyright Act 1976 would allow consumers to
format or "space" shift music they own. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted in Recording Industry
Association of American v Diamond Multimedia 180 f.3d 1072 (9th Cir.
1999) that space shifting "is paradigmatic non-commercial personal
use", which is consistent with copyright law.
¶21. In the absence of a broad fair use provision in New Zealand
legislation, a specific exception is required to allow New Zealand
consumers to engage in the same activity. The proposed New Zealand
exception is narrower than that covered by "fair use" in the US, and
it specifically limits copying to one copy per format, specifies
that the original sound recording must be legitimate and explicitly
excludes making copies from borrowed or hired recordings.
¶22. New Zealand's Ministry of Economic Development and the Associate
Minister of Commerce, the Hon Judith Tizard, who has portfolio
responsibility for intellectual property, have been engaged in an
on-going dialogue with the New Zealand music industry. The
Government was flexible on the drafting of the proposed exception
and added a sunset clause and a condition that the exception would
be overridden by any license provision so as to address industry
concerns.
Time shifting
- - - - - - -
¶23. Time shifting has arisen in the US Trade Estimates report. Time
shifting generally refers to recording a program to watch it at a
later time. The Copyright Act currently provides an exception in
section 84 for time shifting of broadcasts or cable programs for
private and domestic use and solely for the purpose of watching or
listening at a more convenient time. The Government has decided
that, in line with the policy of technological neutrality, this
section should be amended to cover all communication works, except
those available on demand (as a convenient time is always available
on demand). This is consistent with the decision to replace
broadcasts and cable program services with a technology-neutral
category of communication work, which will provide copyright
protection for a wider range of transmission or delivery
technologies.
¶24. Time shifting exceptions are common. New Zealand considers that
the revised technology neutral exception will meet the requirements
of the Berne three-step test.
The US music industry has expressed concern that the time shifting
exception would "eliminate the ability of right holders to develop
new approaches to meeting consumer demand for electronically
WELLINGTON 00000138 004 OF 006
delivered materials and reduce access and choice for New Zealand
consumers to these materials."
¶25. Given the narrow scope of the time shifting exception, and the
clear rationale for it, it will not apply any differently in the
digital world than in the analogue world. Copying music from
Internet stream casts, for example, to build up a home music
collection will not be authorized by the exception any more than was
taping music from the radio for the same purposes.
¶26. The proposed New Zealand exception explicitly relates only to
watching or listening at a more convenient time. It does not allow
home users to build up a collection or "library" of films or music
for ongoing and repeated use. Equally, the provision that time
shifting does not apply to material available "on demand" clearly
delineates the scope and rationale of the exception. Where the
exception does not apply, copying without the copyright owner's
permission will continue to constitute infringement.
¶27. The expansion of copyright protection for activity such as "web
casting", as part of the proposed technology-neutral category of
communication works, is consistent with the US position on this
issue in debate at the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) regarding the rights of broadcasters.
Technological protection measures
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶28. Technological protections measures ("TPMs") include devices,
mechanisms or systems designed to guard against or restrict the use
of material stored in digital format. Copyright owners are
increasingly using TPMs as a practical means to protect their
copyright and develop new business models (such as pay-per-view).
TPMs may prevent access to or use of a work and may, therefore,
inhibit the exercise of "permitted acts" allowed by the Act.
¶29. The Digital Copyright Bill proposes changes to provisions in the
Copyright Act concerning TPMs. Section 226 of the Act currently
allows copyright owners to take action against persons who supply or
manufacture devices, means or information specifically designed to
circumvent "copy-protection" and intended to be used to make
infringing copies of copyright works. The Bill extends this
protection so that copyright owners would have the ability to take
action in respect of all the copyright owner's exclusive rights, not
just copying, in recognition of the increasing importance of rights
of communication and the necessary incentives for the provision of
online and digital services.
Copyright versus "access" control
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶30. An issue that arises is whether copyright legislation should
protect both "copy" and "access" control. The focus of the New
Zealand TPM provisions will continue to be on "copy" control, and
thereby link circumvention to copyright infringement. Copyright
owners would not, for example, be able to take action in respect of
circumvention devices, means or information where the purpose of the
circumvention (and the provision of the device, means or
information) is to enable a user to exercise a permitted act, or to
view or execute a legitimate non-infringing copy of a work.
¶31. In other words, New Zealand will not be providing protection
against infringement of TPMs that are just about access control
(i.e. preventing access to copyright works) where no copyright
infringement has occurred. The rationale for this is that "access"
is not one of the exclusive rights provided to copyright owners in
copyright legislation. The protection for TPMs that are just access
controls goes beyond the traditional scope of copyright protection
and would override the ability of users of copyright material to
exercise legitimate and longstanding permitted acts.
"Act" versus "means" of circumvention
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶32. As noted above, the right of action provided to copyright owners
is in relation to provision of devices or means specifically
designed or adapted to circumvent copy-protection, and in relation
to the publication of information intended to enable or assist
persons to circumvent copy-protection. The "act" of circumvention
is not itself prohibited.
¶33. The rationale is that consultation in the development of digital
copyright policy indicated that extension of liability to the act of
circumvention itself would only be beneficial in terms of addressing
WELLINGTON 00000138 005 OF 006
copyright infringement where circumvention occurs on a commercial
scale. Anecdotal evidence suggests that circumvention does not
occur on such a scale in New Zealand. Targeting actual
circumvention would not generate additional incentives for the
creation of works, which is the ultimate policy goal of the Act.
¶34. In addition, a prohibition against the actual act of
circumvention would potentially catch a range of innocent or
unintended activity. As such, it would need to be accompanied by a
range of exceptions for certain behavior (e.g. circumvention to
exercise permitted acts, computer security research). This approach
inevitably ties the Act to current circumstances and will not
necessarily capture all relevant behavior.
¶35. The Bill also contains new provisions to enable the actual
exercise of permitted acts where TPMs have been applied. Initially
the onus would be on copyright owners, upon application from users,
to take voluntary steps to allow the effective exercise of permitted
acts. Where owners failed to take voluntary steps the Act would
allow the provision or manufacture of circumvention devices, means
or information, on receipt of a declaration from a library, archive
or educational establishment that circumvention is required for the
purposes of exercising a permitted act.
Remedies
- - - - -
¶36. The Bill will introduce a criminal offence as a deterrent, in
addition to civil remedies in respect of the provision of
circumvention devices, means and information. Criminal offences
would operate where there has been large scale commercial dealing in
circumvention devices, means and information. Such offences would
be punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding NZ$150,000
and/or imprisonment for a term of not more than five years
(consistent with existing offence provisions).
¶37. The focus on copyright infringement rather than "access control"
is considered to be consistent with international standards,
including the WIPO Copyright Treaty ("WCT") and the WIPO Phonograms
and Performers Treaty ("WPPT") that New Zealand is not a party to.
Articles 11 and 18 of these treaties respectively require parties to
provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies
against the circumvention of effective TPMs that are used by
copyright authors and owners in connection with the exercise of
their rights under those treaties or the Berne Convention.
¶38. The WCP and WPPT do not specify whether a copy or access control
approach should be taken. The New Zealand approach is consistent
with that taken by a number of countries who are parties to the WIPO
Internet Treaties, as noted in WIPO's survey of implementation of
those agreements.
Extension of Copyright Term
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶39. Copyright term refers to the length of time that copyright
owners enjoy exclusive rights. At the expiry of the copyright term
a work enters the "public domain" and it can be exploited by anyone
without the risk of copyright infringement. New Zealand wants to
maintain the TRIPS-consistent term for copyright protection. New
Zealand considers that an extension of the copyright term would
provide little increase in the incentive to create, and would be
likely to have a detrimental effect on creativity that builds upon
existing works, and added transactional and tracing costs in
identifying and locating copyright owners.
Patent term for pharmaceuticals
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶40. In New Zealand, the patent term is 20 years from the date of
filing of the application, with no provision for extension. This is
consistent with the minimum standards required by the TRIPS
Agreement. In 2003, the New Zealand Government considered whether
the patent term for pharmaceuticals should be extended in New
Zealand. The views of interested parties including the
pharmaceutical companies were sought. After considering all the
issues, the Government decided that the patent term should not be
extended. It was considered there was insufficient evidence that
the benefits, mainly in the form of increased investment in New
Zealand, would offset the costs in the form of increased costs of
patented pharmaceuticals. Extending the patent term would delay the
entry to the market of generic pharmaceuticals.
¶41. In 2002 the Patents Act 1953 was amended to introduce a "spring
WELLINGTON 00000138 006 OF 006
boarding" provision. This allows generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers to make use of patented pharmaceuticals for the
purposes of obtaining regulatory approval. This allows generic
pharmaceuticals to enter the market shortly after patent expiry.
The US has a similar provision (the so-called "Bolar" exemption).
Other Patent Issues
- - - - - - - - - -
¶42. New Zealand would want to continue to avail itself of the
various exclusions and exceptions relating to patentability
contained in the TRIPS Agreement. These include exceptions and
flexibilities relating to public health, morality and public order,
and life forms. The Patents Bill, expected to be introduced later
in 2007, specifically incorporates some of these exceptions to
address Maori and Treaty of Waitangi issues concerning life forms
and traditional knowledge.
McCormick