•
13.
CONFIDENTIAL
intended to be exercisable at some future date, if
and when such broadcasts became available. Ав
long ago as December, 1965, before any television broadcasting licence had been granted to TVB, RTV had made application to the telecommunication
authority in Hong Kong for the allocation of frequen- cies to enable planning for their relay of broadcast television to proceed. That authority and the Hong
Kong Government must therefore have been well aware, for several years, of RTV's intentions as regards
the exercise of their relay rights.
The strength of RTV's feelings on the subject was such that in 1968 they applied to the Supreme Court of Hong Kong
for a declaration that it would be unlawful for the Hong
Kong Legislative Council to pass the proposed Copyright
Bill and for an injunction to prevent them from doing so. The Hong Kong Government's response to this action was to
claim:-
(a) that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the
matter:
(b) that there were no reasonable grounds for RTV's
claim.
The Supreme Court rejected (a) but accepted (b) and struck
out RTV's claim. The case then went on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which, on 15 April, 1970, upheld both decisions of the Hong Kong Supreme Court.
There is therefore no legal bar to the enactment of the
proposed Bill by the Hong Kong Legislature, though it could still be challenged in the courts after enactment.
14. TYB's Attitude: TVB have represented (in Hong Kong) that without copyright protection against the relay service
of RTV their Company could not operate commercially. They have maintained that the only way their wireless television
station can compete with its rival and expand its own aud-
ience is by putting on programmes more attractive to the viewing public; that this element of competition is immediately destroyed if RTV is allowed to take and use their Company's programmes at will; and that their. Company's audience and advertising revenue can grow only
by
CONFIDENTIAL