TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 24

REDIFFUSION

REDIFFUSION LIMITED

Recd.

its

MINISTER OF STATE

8

Ack.

75)

Dent

To.

Carlton House Lower Regent Street London SW1

Telephone Whitehall 0221

Cables Rediffuse

30th July 1968

Dear hard Shepherd,

I am writing to you about a problem which affects Rediffusion Limited, of which I am a director, through a sub-subsidiary company, Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Limited. I am enclosing two papers dealing with aspects of this problem, one, on the relay of broadcast programmes, prepared by the company, the other, on the law of copyright as it applies to the relaying of broadcasts, prepared by counsel, Mr. William Wells, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. E.P. Skone James, instructed by Rediffusion's solicitors, Messrs. Sydney Morse and Co., of which firm I am a partner.

2. The problem arises out of the proposed extension to Hong Kong of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1956. I must make it clear that Rediffusion welcomes this proposal in principle, and that our concern is to ensure that the provisions of the Act should be applied, with any appropriate modifications, in toto, and without any selectivity directed against the legitimate interests of Rediffusion as we understand them.

3.The

extension to Hong Kong of the 1956 Act involves two processes: first, the making of an Order in Council authorising the extension; second, the enactment in Hong Kong of an ordinance specifying, inter alia, any modifications proposed that are within the ambit of section 31 of the Act, the enabling provision for this purpose. Drafts of both instruments are in existence.

At this stage we wish to discuss only the draft of the proposed Order in Council. The draft ordinance is the subject of litigation: two summonses have been heard by the Supreme Court of Hong Kong and these are the subject of cross appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This aspect is therefore sub judice and it would clearly be wrong to attempt to discuss it except in so far as it may be necessary to explain the issues involved in the problem as a whole.

5. These have already been the subject of discussion between the Industrial

Property Division of the Board of Trade, at official level, on the one hand and Rediffusion and Sydney Morse on the other. Our representations have been most courteously received but there is one underlying question of principle which I think warrants consideration at ministerial level and for which it seems to me that the appropriate department is yours rather than the Board of Trade.

The Parent Company of the Rediffusion Organisation