TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 105

for the wire relay of their programmes)

would be issued in Hong Kong in return for

some form of foe, then Section 40(3) of the

U.K. ct should be extended to Hong Kong.

This would exempt the relay company from any

oblations to clear rights with authors etc.

when they relay H.K.T.V.B. programmes.

4.

Shortly after this meeting Mr. Wallace

expanded his views in a letter to Mr. Beattie.

He said (in part): "Whatever the merits of

making Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. pay the

copyright owner (in practice only the composers collect) for relaying the sound

programme, if there is no equivalent of

Section 40(3) in the Act as extended to Hong

Kong it seems likely that the copyright

owners will be paid twice when H.K.T.V.B's

programmes are relayed. But, much more

important, it would make it virtually

impossible for Rediffusion (Hong Kong) to

relay any of the commercial T.V. service

(because they would have, in advance, to get

permission from the copyright owners of the

works included in the broadcasts). It is one

thing for a broadcasting organisation, which

makes up its programmes well in advance, to do

this; but quite another for a relay

organisation to do so.

It may be that the

Hong Kong authorities wish to prohibit

virtually all relaying by Rediffusion (Hong

Kong) Ltd. of the new commercial T.V. service.

But if they propose to allow it to continue,

some provision absolving Rediffusion from

clearing copyright in advance, with all the

copyright owners, will have to be made."

5. Mr. Wallace continues: "We notice that

Section 4(2) of the proposed Ordinance makos

/it

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

Page 105Page 106