for the wire relay of their programmes)
would be issued in Hong Kong in return for
some form of fee, then Section 40(3) of the
U.K let should be extended to Hong Kong.
This would exempt the relay company from any
gations to clear rights with authors etc.
when they relay H.K.T.V.B. programmes.
4.
Shortly after this meeting Mr. Wallace
BOTT expanded his views in a letter to Mr. Beattio. He said (in part): "Whatever the merits of
making Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. pay the
copyright owner (in practice only the
composers collect) for relaying the sound
programme, if there is no equivalent of
Section 40(3) in the Act as extended to Hong
Kong it seems likely that the copyright
owners will be paid twice when H.K.T.V.B's
programmes are relayed. But, much more
important, it would make it virtually
impossible for Rediffusion (Hong Kong) to
relay any of the commercial T.V. service
(because they would have, in advance, to get
permission from the copyright owners of the
works included in the broadcasts). It is one
thing for a broadcasting organisation, which
makes up its programmes well in advance, to do
this; but quite another for a relay
organisation to do so.
It may be that the
Hong Kong authorities wish to prohibit
virtually all relaying by Rediffusion (Hong
Kong) Ltd. of the new commercial T.V. service.
But if they propose to allow it to continue,
some provision absolving Rediffusion from
clearing copyright in advance, with all the
copyright owners, will have to be made."
The Big ? add
5. Mr. Wallace continues: "We notice that
Section 4(2) of the proposed Ordinance makes
/it
This
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN