qués
and gues then
The given t vefuse any velay of
Itein
prepravo.
way of Rediffusion exercising their rights
which did not previously exist and would
seem, in effect, to nullify Rediffusion's
right under their licence to relay
television broadcasts. This is because the
effect is to make a licence from Hong Kong
Television Limited necessary, while the
commercial inducement to grant such a
licence to Rediffusion is to be removed by
allowing another relay diffusion service
(the so-called aerfál distribution system)
to be established. The licence to Rediffusion,
Ltd. ensures that it is a British concern;
we do not know whether any similar condition
would attach to the other relay service.
(111) The Legal Adviser süggests that Section 40(3)
of the Act should not be omitted without the
inclusion of some provision to the effect
that, if any copyright licence to relay or
diffuse television broadcasts by wire is
granted, it shall be granted on the same
terms to all diffusion concerns.
(iii) (16) The Legal Adviser takes the view that, Since
(iv)
(83247) (2) 300M 10/65 St.S.
Section 4(2) would include broadcasts from
outside the Colony, it is ultra viries; it
is not within the power conferred by
Section 31(3) of the Copyright Act since
that limits the modifications which may be
made to television broadcasts made from
within the Colony. He also considers that Incidentally
also appears the Section 4 of the Ordinance [ultre
viries since, in effect, it purports to
permit the Governor to do by Order what
Section 31(3) of the Act permits the
legislature of the Colony to do.
the Lopal Nurse cloubts (v) Regarding Section 5, he says he would have
/doubted
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN