Mr. Gaminara
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference.....
НКК 16/2
25
this matter.
2.
Mr. Rushford has asked me to deal with
Since I minuted at (14) I have been able to see a report of the judgement of the Full Court of Hong Kong. It appears that RTV consider that two provisions of the Hong Kong Copyright Bill would, if the Bill were passed, be void as being ultra vires and/or repugnant to the Copyright Act 1956: firstly, the definition of "television broadcast" in clause 2(1) because it is "clearly an attempt to enlarge the definition in the 1956 Act and niether a modification or addition relating to procedure or remedies nor otherwise consistent with the requirements of the proviso to Section 31(3) of the the 1956 Act"; secondly, Clause 4(2), because it "seeks to provide that it should be an act restricted by the copyright in a television broadcast to broadcast it or cause it to be transmitted to the premises of subscribers to a diffusion service over wires or other patis provided by material substances. This is claimed to be an enlargement of the Copyright in television broadcasts as such, since it includes an act which is not restricted by section 14 of the 1956 Act, and to be in excess of the powers conferred by section 31(3)."
3.
I agree that the effect of these provis- ions is to enlarge the copyright in television broadcasts and to that extent they must be considered to be "modifications or additions" falling withing section 31(3) of the Copyright Act. However, in my view they may properly be considered to be modifica- tions or additions which the legislature (if it passes the Bill) consideres necessary to adapt the provisions of the Copyright Act to the circumstances of Hong Kong, and (provided clause 4(2) is amended to be limited to broadcasts made from Hong Kong) I do not think the proviso to Section 31(3) has any application. Accordingly, provided the above amend- ment is made and clause 4(4) is omitted I do not believe that the Bill, if passed, would be ultra vires or repugnant to the Copyright Act.
Luta
I should add that I do not read the two passages quoted by Mr. Wallace from Lord Morris's judgement as referring to the substance of RTV's claim that the Bill, if passed, would be ultra vires/repugnant. The first passage related only to the differing effects of section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act and Section 31 (3) of the Copyright Act with which he was concerned. The
second passage (preceded by the words " on the concession made" (i.e. that the Bill, if passed, would be ultra vires/repugnant).
5.
Nevertheless, it may be that the Hong Kong Attorney General is in possession of fuller arguments by RTV on this point than appears in the judgement of the full Court. If so, it would in my view be advisable for us to see these arguments, and the Attorney General's views on them. However, I do not think that this should hold up the present
CONFIDENTIAL
/submission.....