NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
CONFIDENTIAL
Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. could have no
valid objection to that being done since the
licence itself expressly declared that it was
subject to any copyright which might exist in
matter received by means of Rediffusion's
broadcast receiving station.
6.
In spite of the fact that no serious
legal objections are raised, provided certain
conditions, to which I refer below, are
fulfilled, and although we understand that a
situation may have arisen which was not
envisaged at the time of the conclusion of the
Rediffusion licence, I have, for the reasons
explained in paragraph 4, some doubts as to
whether copyright legislation is the correct
way to restrict the terms of the licence, an
aim which might be better achieved through
frank discussion with Rediffusion on the
question of re-negotiation.
7.
I am advised that there would be no
legal objection (if this would expedite matters)
to your omitting Clause 4 of the draft
Ordinance, so that I may have further time to
consider the implications, and enacting it
later if I feel able to approve it.
It seems
likely that, if this were done, our position in
regard to Rediffusion Ltd. would be easier.
8.
The question of whether Section 40 (3)
of the Copyright Act should be applied to
Hong Kong was also discussed with Mr. Hobley.
I am advised that it should be applied and that
either it should be applied in relation to
Hong Kong broadcasting companies (as it applies to the B.B.C. and I.T.A.) by the Order in
CONFIDENTIAL
Council/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.