TNAG-0086-FCO40-122-Copyright-legislation-1968 — Page 62

Note

of discussion on proposed Hong Kong Copyright legislation between Mr. Hobley and Mr. Oxley at the Commonwealth Office

on 26 June 1968

Following our meeting with Mr. Hobley and the Board of Trade on Tuesday last, I had a long discussion on 26 June with

Mr. Hobley on a number of points including the following:-

(1) the interpretation of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the

licence to Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. of 1957; the merits as affecting Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. in relation to the possible limitation of their rights

under the licence resulting from the new copyright

law;

(ii)

(iii)

the position generally of the Hong Kong proposals as to the new copyright law as they affect television having regard to the fact that Mr. Clague, who is a member of

the Hong Kong Executive Council and a friend of the

Governor, is a director and shareholder of Hong Kong Television Broadcasts Ltd.;

(iv) the application of section 34(4) of the present

(v)

Telecommunications Ordinance, which allows a licence

to be cancelled if the Governor in Council considers

the public interest so requires and which it is proposed by the Hong Kong Government to use to cancel the present licence to Rediffusion and to substitute a new licence giving narrower relay rights to Rediffusion and some relay rights to another concern; the application of section 40(3) of the Copyright Act, which allows the relay of a broadcast programme without the necessity of first obtaining the licence

of the copyright owner of every work included in the

programme;

(vi) whether section 4(2) of the draft Copyright Ordinance,

which constitutes a copyright in a television

broadcast separate and distinct from that of the owners of the copyright of the various works included in the broadcast, would be ultra vires and would be in conflict with (vii) whether, if the effect of the Copyright Order in

the licence to Rediffmoniom (Hong Kong) Lea

Council and Ordinance, as it would affect Rediffusion Ltd. and its television licence, was likely to delay approval of the Secretary of State, approval could be

given at once to the Order in Council and draft

Ordinance with the omission of section 4.

/2.