2. In the definition of "television broadcast" the comma between "wires" and "or" should be omitted.
3. It seems to us that there is considerable overlap between the provisions of Clause 4(1) and 4(2) of the Ordinance and the provisions of the Copyright (Broadcasting Organisations) Order 1961. Section 4(1) provides that the Act as extended to Hong Kong applies to the broadcasts of local organisations as it applies to the broadcasts of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. It is true that television and sound broadcasts are defined more widely than in the Act but in our opinion the Broadcasting Organisation Order itself applies Section 14, 40 and sub-section 4 of Section 48 of the Act to Hong Kong broadcasts. Similarly rebroadcasting the broadcast (one of the things covered by Section 4(2)) would also be provided for by the extension of the Order to Hong Kong.
4. This being so, the only additional act restricted by the copyright is the transmission to the premises of subscribers over wires and this is the only restriction to. which this sub-section need refer.
5. We are not clear what effect is intended by the wider definition of "sound broadcast" and "television broadcast"in Clause 2 and by Clause 4(5)(b). It seems to be intended to protect programmes originated over a diffusion service in the same way as Section 14 of the Copyright Act protects original television or sound broadcasts and to give to both the additional protection of Clause 4(2). This is logical enough in cases in which the wire diffusers originate their own programmes. But there is not the same need to confer protection on wire diffusers as on broadcasters since the former, unlike the latter, are in contractual relationship with every recipient of their programme and can stipulate accordingly. To change the definitions in this way may lead to some odd and unforeseen consequences.
6. The side note to Clause 5 speaks of "Hong Kong Works" but the text does not so circumscribe the effect of the Clause. This seems to call for amendment of the side, note.
7. The side note of Clause 4 speaks of "broadcasts by Hong Kong organisations, but its effect seems to be to give the additional protection of sub-section (2) to B.B.C. and I.T.A. broadcasts as well. In this case it seems that the text rather than the side note should be altered; otherwise there would be some danger of conflict with the Proviso to Section 31(3) of the 1956 Act.
3
You will see that we have had a certain amount of difficulty with this Ordinance. Basically, we do not know what effects Hong Kong is seeking to achieve and this makes it very difficult to know whether or not the Ordinance achieves them.
We would of course be happy to discuss the matter with you or Oxley should you think this would help. I an sending a spare copy of this
letter.
Yours sincerely,
to wallace.
سا
(W. WALLACH)