should be available.
Rediffusion in 1957,
the public interest.
Ordinance in 1962. I, myself, would have felt very doubtful
whether the ground mentioned above for cancelling Rediffusion's licence would be adequate. This, however, is not a legal point.
11.
On the fifth and sixth points, Mr. Hobley repeated that the Hong Kong Government would be willing to include among the sections of the Copyright Act to be extended to Hong Kong by the Order in Council section 40(3) of that Act and to include in the Ordinance a similar provision which, in the place of the British Broadcasting Corporation referred to in that section,
would refer to Hong Kong Television Broadcasts Ltd. As to clause 4(2) of the Ordinance, Mr. Hobley said that the Hong Kong
birga, miva ko Government would insert the words "made by any ordinance specified in the Schedule". I agree that this would meet the
ultra vires point previously raised. Otherwise, I do not think that the provisions of clause 4(2) of the Ordinance would be objectionable from a legal point of view. It is not an unusual provision; there is a similar provision in section 14 of the Copyright Act, which, however, it is not proposed to extend to Hong Kong by the Order in Council. Rediffusion's licence was,
of course, subject to the law of Hong Kong, including any copyright legislation then in force or to be enacted.
Rediffusion must have well understood this, since the licence in paragraph 17(2) declared that it did not authorise any
infringement of copyright in any matter received by means of the
broadcast receiving station. I do not see, therefore, that they could object to Hong Kong Television Broadcasts being subject to copyright for reproduction or use of which Rediffusion would have
to get permission of the broadcasting company.
The licence, when originally granted to
was not subject to any power to cancel in
This power was included in a new
12. On the seventh point, I would see no legal objection to the
Hong Kong Government, if this would expedite matters for them,
omitting clause 4 of their draft Ordinance, so that the
Secretary of State may have further time to consider the
implications, and enacting it later if it is approved by the
Secretary of State. It seems to me that, if this were done, our position in regard to Rediffusion would be easier. There would be nothing in the proposed copyright legislation which
they could argue would affect them.
цитолу
2 July, 1968