WITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF THE
HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE
54 PALL MALL
LONDON S.W.I
Ronaldsale
F. TIMES 16/4/70
Hong Kong not bound by the Copyright Act
out
of
TWO APPEALS arising litigation brought in the Hong Kong Supreme Court by Rediffusion (Hong Kong) over the terms of a dratt Bill to amend the U.K. Copyright Act. 1956. in its proposed application to Hong Kong were both dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council yesterday.
By a 3 to 1 majority the Privy Council dismissed an appeal by the company and upheld an order made by the Supreme Court in June, 1968, striking out the company's writ. This had included a claim for a declara- tion that it would not be lawful for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to pass the proposed Bill.
the
The second appeal was brought by the defendants in the case. Attorney General of Hong Kong (on behalf of himself and all other mem bers of the Legislative Council) and Mr.
Assistant
G. C. Hamilton,
Colonial Secretary.
The Privy Council unanimously dismissed their plea that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings. of the Legislative Council,
No order was made on the costs. of the appeals, which had been con- solidated.
+
:
+
:
01-930 7951
MINTUSION
APPEAL DISMISSED
A HONGKONG
television company could be denied its "birthright" by a Privy Council decision, a spokesman for the ∙company said yesterday.
Chairman and General
RI
Manager ol Rediffusion (Hongkong) Ltd. Mr. Warren, was commenting on the council's Judicial Committee's dismissal of the company's appeal over amendments of the UK Copyright Act 1956.
Under the amended Act, proposed for Hongkong, Rediffusion would be prevented from relaying to their subscribers programmes broadcast from television broadcasting station in Hongkong unless they could obtain a Ticence from
a
the
company operating the television broadcasting station.
**Television
companies
in
other companies are allowed to provide their customers with the two means of receiving the telecast signals by relay and broadcast. But this legislation, if it comes into effect here, will deny us the right to provide this service to our subscribers," said Mr. Warren.
AL
in
television present Hongkong was still covered by the Copyright Act of 1911. The 1956 Copyright Act has not yet been applied to Hongkong because of the appeal over the amendments to the Act,
APRIL 17 1970
HONG KONG STANDARD
'
Rediffusion appeal dismissed
London, Apr. 16.
Two appeals arising out of litigation brought in the Hongkong Supreme Court by Rediffusion (Hongkong) Ltd, over the terms of a draft Bill to amend the UK Copyright Act, 1956, in its proposed application to Hongkong, were both dismissed by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council yesterday.
By' a 3 to 1 majority decision the Privy Council upheld an order made by the Supreme Court in June, 1968, striking out the com- pany's writ.
the
This had included a claim by
the company for a declaration that it would not be lawful for the Legislative Council of Hongkong to pass the proposed Bill.
was
The second appeal brought by the defendant in the case, the Attorney General of Hongkong (on behalf of himself and all other members of the Legis- › lative Council) and the Assistant Colonial Secretary, Mr G. C. Hamilton.
The
Privy Council un- animously dismissed their plea that the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings of the Legis- lative Council,
Lord Diplock, who deliver- ed the Privy Council's majority judgment, said that the draft Bill contained modifications and additions to the Copyright Act, 1956, which Rediffusion considered would operate to their com- mercial disadvantage.
In particular although it granted separate copyright
to programmes relayed by Rediffusion it also made the of relaying by Rediffusion television broadcasts a breach
of the separate copyright in the television broadcast.
This would prevent the company from relaying to their subscribers programmes broadcast from a television broadcasting station in Hong- kong unless they could obtain a licence to do 50 from the company operating the television broadcasting station.
Rediffusion considered that these proposed modifications and additions to the pro- visions of the 1956 Act were not within the legislative the Hongkong powers of legislature. Both summonses raised questions of law of outstanding constitutional importance,
The immunity from the control by the courts enjoyed by members of a Legislative Assembly was founded on necessity and in the Privy Council's view the court was right in holding that it had Jurisdiction to inquire whether it would be unlaw. ful for the Legislative Coun- ril to pass the proposed bill.
-Reuter.
APRIL 17
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
6