TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 22

Mr. Oxley

Mr. Godden

Reference...

wild s

Flag A. (ES.

Flag G.

Flag H

A reply is required to the letter at (75) addressed to Lord Shepherd by Lord Tangley, one of the directors of Rediffusion Limited.

2. The letter relates to a difficult and complex problem, the background of which is given in paragraphs 4 and 5 of (65). The first enclosure to Lord Tangley's letter also provides a useful summary of the position.

3. Reduced to its simplest terms, the problem revolves round a proposal to extend (with modifications) to Hong Kong by Order in Council the provisions of the United Kingdom Copyright Act of 1956, coupled with a proposal by the Hong Kong Government to enact a supplementary ordinance of their own. Rediffusion Limited, who have a strong Parliamentary lobby, expect (with some justification) this legislation to derogate from the rights they possess under the exclusive licence granted to them in 1956 by the Hong Kong Government to relay broadcast television programmes. They are quite clearly prepared to fight all the way to preserve what they regard as their rights in the matter. Mr. W. T. Wells, Q.C., M.P., has been representing Rediffusion Limited's interests in legal action against the Hong Kong Government. He wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary in March asking him to examine the position at the United Kingdom end of the exercise, and in his reply the Commonwealth Secretary said that he was aware of the interests of Rediffusion Limited and would be sending a substantive reply to Mr. Wells as soon as he was in a position to do so. This reply has not yet been seat

4. Rediffusion Limited have been making representations to us at the official level since last September. Their object is to ensure that their case is considered by Ministers before either the Order in Council or the Hong Kong Ordinance is enacted, and to ensure further that when› this legislation is enacted, it will not derogate from their rights.

5. We have been in communication with the Hong Kong Government on this subject for some time but the matter is so complex that it cannot quickly be resolved. Both the Board of Trade and ourselves are involved, since it will fall to the President of the Board of Trade to sponsor the Order in Council since copyright is a subject for which he is responsible. It is unlikely that the Order in Council will present any difficulty.

The only controversial point with which it is concerned is that mentioned by Lord Tangley in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his letter. We have in fact recently informed the Governor of Hong Kong (after reaching informal agreement with a representative from their Attorney-General's Department in discussions here) that we consider that Section 40(3) of the United Kingdom Copyright Act should be applied to Hong Kong. This is the point which Lord Tangley specifically mentions in his letter. Subject to Mr. Oxley's views, however, I doubt if we are yet in a position to tell Lord Tangley that his fears on this particular point are groundless, since we have not yet received Hong Kong's confirmation that there will be no difficulty in the matter.

16.