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. Act should be extended to Hong Kong.
This would exempt the relay company from any
obligations to clear rights with authors etc.
when they relay H.K.T.V.B. programmes.
Shortly after this meeting Mr. Wallace
expanded his views in a letter to Mr. Beattie.
He said (in part): "Whatever the merits of
making Rediffusión (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
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." This seams
The Bound of Trade and
Mr. Wallace continued: "We notice that
Section 4(2) of the proposed Ordinance makes
/it
pedret th Refsin).
The Bound of Trade
fik pontant in à letts for Wallace jo Bealta H
15 us
کا
N
A
Vs Arkum sušenie.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN