There seemed to be no legal objection to the Hong Kong
Government restricting R.T.V.'s relay rights under
Copyright Law, but the question of how their licence was
to be interpreted was quite another matter.
5. Mr. Hobley thought that R.T.V.'s right to operate an
exclusive wired T.V. service was quite separate from any
rights they might claim relating to relays, and in his view
such rights as they had were not for "continuous relay"
such as they were now undertaking.
Their licence entitled
them to "distribute by wire". He considered that the licence
had been intended only to enable them to pick up and relay
"occasional" programmes.
6. Mr. Oxley, however, did not feel that the wording of the
licence in any way restricted R.T.V. to "intermittent" relays.
Revocation of R.T.V. licence.
7. Mr. Hobley said it was in fact proposed to revoke R.T.V. 's
present licence (issued in 1956) and issue a new one in its
place. The Hong Kong Government had a legal right to do this.
Asked by Mr. Eaton why the Government had not considered
revoking the licence first and then bringing in the desired
copyright legislation, he said the current proposals had
seemed to them the best way of achieving the desired aim.
Compensation
8. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Hobley
said no decision had been made about possible compensation
for R.T.V.
9. Mr. Oxley suggested that if this had been a foreign
company, the Hong Kong Government would have been compelled
by international law to pay compensation. Mr. Hobley pointed
out that Executive Council was unwilling to concede that
R.T.V. had the "rights" they claimed. In answer to a
further query from the Chairman, he agreed that the intention
when the licence was drawn up had been that R.T.V. should
produce their own programmes and that relays should be a minor
/element
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.