I've thought about this a bit more, and below is my case for the defence (as it were). See this post for the case for the prosecution.

The main argument is that, contrary to the prosecution, breaching the Netflix (or other VOD service) terms and conditions is just a breach of contract, not a breach of copyright. This is a matter purely between the customer and Netflix. The anti-globalmoders can't sue for breach of a contract they are not a party to. This is called the doctrine of privity. Further, even if Netflix did sue, it has suffered no loss so the customer is not liable for anything (note however the "nuclear option" described below).

The policy intent (or statutory scheme or "vibe") of the Copyright Act is clearly to allow parallel importing/circumventing regional locks and/or pocket pricing (see in particular section 226, proviso regarding TPMs not including geographic market segmentation devices).

By analogy, parallel importing books and DVDs is clearly contemplated by the Copyright Act. The difference between books/DVDs and Netflix is that Neflix's terms and conditions say "only US customers". To elevate a breach of such terms and conditions to a breach of copyright would undermine this. Copyright owners could effectively ban any kind of parallel importing by including in the book/DVD EULA "this may only be read/viewed in the USA" (DVDs at least may already purport to do this, but I couldn't for the life of me find any DVD EULAs on the internet). This would clearly be contrary to the intent of the Copyright Act.

As there is no breach of copyright by making an infringing copy, then the only possible issue could be breach by"importing" a copy. As outlined extensively elsewhere in this thread, this is protected in New Zealand by the parallel importing provisions. See in particular section 12(5A).

Therefore if there is no breach of copyright by customers, the ISPs and Bypass Networks aren't providing a means for making infringing copies (see section 37), they are merely providing a passive conduit. Everyone goes home happy. Except Lightbox et al.

It would be helpful for this argument if anyone was able to provide examples of other uses of globalmode that clearly have nothing to do with copyright. I couldn't really think of any though.
--

The "nuclear option" I mentioned above would be for Lightbox etc. to discontinue its action against the ISPs, and instead go after the copyright owners (e.g. movie studios). Lightbox's agreement with (say) Warner Bros will include something to the effect of "Lightbox will have the exclusive rights in NZ to distribute title X". Warners would be in breach of this agreement if it allowed someone else to distribute title X in NZ (i.e. Netflix).

While this would seem to be self defeating (Warners isn't likely to look on being sued nicely), it could be a negotiating ploy by agreement. What I would actually imagine happening is Warners saying "okay" to being sued. What it would then do is join Netflix as a co-defendant for breaching it's agreement with Warners, which would likely include something to the effect of "Netflix will not distribute title X in territories other than those specified in this agreement".

This would be a ploy to get around the privity issues described above. Lightbox can't actually sue Netflix, because there is no privity. But lightbox has an agreement with Warners, and Warners has an agreement with Netflix.

The case would then settle by Netflix agreement to implement increased region controls that aren't quite so easy to circumvent.

Or alternatively, Netflix going after it's NZ subscribers for indemnity for breach of the customer's warranty that they are based in the USA. But suing customers has ended so well previously for other media conglomerates, I can't imagine that Netflix would have any hesitation pulling the litigation trigger. /sarcasm

This is a nuclear scenario, because in a lot of ways, everyone loses. Lightbox doesn't want to sue Warners and Warners doesn't want to be sued. Netflix certainly isn't happy and neither are it's globalmode customers. But it ultimately may lead to the outcome Lightbox wants, particularly if the case for the defence outlined above is successful.