TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 115

qués

and gues then

The given t vefuse any velay of

Itein

prepravo.

way of Rediffusion exercising their rights

which did not previously exist and would

seem, in effect, to nullify Rediffusion's

right under their licence to relay

television broadcasts. This is because the

effect is to make a licence from Hong Kong

Television Limited necessary, while the

commercial inducement to grant such a

licence to Rediffusion is to be removed by

allowing another relay diffusion service

(the so-called aerfál distribution system)

to be established. The licence to Rediffusion,

Ltd. ensures that it is a British concern;

we do not know whether any similar condition

would attach to the other relay service.

(111) The Legal Adviser süggests that Section 40(3)

of the Act should not be omitted without the

inclusion of some provision to the effect

that, if any copyright licence to relay or

diffuse television broadcasts by wire is

granted, it shall be granted on the same

terms to all diffusion concerns.

(iii) (16) The Legal Adviser takes the view that, Since

(iv)

(83247) (2) 300M 10/65 St.S.

Section 4(2) would include broadcasts from

outside the Colony, it is ultra viries; it

is not within the power conferred by

Section 31(3) of the Copyright Act since

that limits the modifications which may be

made to television broadcasts made from

within the Colony. He also considers that Incidentally

also appears the Section 4 of the Ordinance [ultre

viries since, in effect, it purports to

permit the Governor to do by Order what

Section 31(3) of the Act permits the

legislature of the Colony to do.

the Lopal Nurse cloubts (v) Regarding Section 5, he says he would have

/doubted

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN