TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 59

(A)

3

broadcasting company concerned might not give the necessary consent to the relay of a programme of which they owned the copyright, would not be a ground for withholding approval to the draft legislation. I do

not think that this would constitute a legal reason

for withholding approval. The licence must have been subject to Hong Kong law and was expressed to be

subject to copyright in broadcast programmes.

my

5. I suggest that the Secretary of State's Despatch, in reply to the Governor's Saving Despatch of 10 February, should refer to the discussions his

officials and Board of Trade officials have had with

Mr. Hobley. It might mention that consideration has been given to the question whether the licence to Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. conferred the exclusive right to relay broadcast television material and whether the draft copyright legislation would take away that right and, as it were, constitute a breach

of contract.. The Despatch might go on to say -

"In the opinion of h legal advisers, the licence did confer on Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd.

the exclusive right to relay broadcast television

material, even if, as Mr. Hobley stated, the

Hong Kong Government files leading up to the grant of the licence showed that that was not then the Government's intention. But, in his- legal advisers' view, the licence was necessarily subject to the law of Hong Kong and the fact tha Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. held an exclusive right to relay television broadcasts would not,

for the sole reason that the effect of the proposed copyright legislation would be that Rediffusion would have to obtain a licence from

the broadcasting company concerned before they could exercise their exclusive right to relay a broadcast and that the company might not grant it, constitute a legal objection to the proposed

copyright legislation. It is considered that 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.

I suggest that the Despatch might say that the question whether section 40(3) of the Copyright Act should be applied to Hong Kong was als

discussed with

/Mr. Hobley