TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 117

for the wire relay of their programmes)

would be issued in Hong Kong in return for

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

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

This would exempt the relay company from any

obligations to clear rights with authors etc.

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

Shortly after this meeting Mr. Wallace

expanded his views in a letter to Mr. Beattie.

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

making Rediffusión (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

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." This seams

The Bound of Trade and

Mr. Wallace continued: "We notice that

Section 4(2) of the proposed Ordinance makes

/it

pedret th Refsin).

The Bound of Trade

fik pontant in à letts for Wallace jo Bealta H

15 us

کا

N

A

Vs Arkum sušenie.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN