10
not make clear what is their reason for wishing to deprive the company of their right.
Kong should be asked.
•
I suggest Mong
5. Since the Order in Council is for the Beard of
Trade, it is for them to comment on the Order and this they have done in Mr. Wallace's letter of
}
23 February and further in his letter of 17 April. They comment, in particular, on the omission of Section 40(3) of the 1956 Act.
6. Whether the Commonwealth Secretary should eventually overrule Hong Kong if they persist in their wish to have Subsection (3) of 'Section 40 of the 1956 Act omitted is a matter of policy. However, its omission coupled with the provisions of Section 4(2) of the draft Ordinance puts an obstacle in the 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 Ltd. necessary as Mr. Wallace shows in his letter ef
+
23 February 1968 and the commercial inducement to grant such a licence to Rediffusion is to be removed by allow- ing another`relay diffusion service (the so-called aerial 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. Assuming that the Hong Kong Government is 'entitled to allow another television relay service to be established, it seems to me that we should not agree to the omission of Section 40(3) without the inclusion of some provision t 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.
7. The Board of Trade have also been good enough to comment on the Ordinance and these comments also might be brought to the attention of the Hong Kong Government. The only additional points I would make on the Ordinance are as follows.
8. Since Section 4(2) would `include broadcasts from outside the colony, it is ultra vires; 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.
19.