PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
(v) Regarding Section 5, although the legal point is
not free from doubt, we feel you could properly make the Section extend to all works and not only to Hong Kong works.
3. The Board of Trade consider that the piloting of the Order in Council extending the 1956 Act to Hong Kong would be the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade and they are therefore concerned to see that Rediffusion Limited are not given any avoidable opportunities for criticism over the outcome of this matter. They feel that purely as a matter of copyright law and disregarding any rights which Rediffusion may have under their existing licence, the Hong Kong Government's intention to give the broadcasting authority power to control wire diffusion was defensible, despite Rediffusion's objections. It was true that in the United Kingdom, the B.B.C. and I.T.A. did not have this right, but they had not asked for it at the time that the set was introduced, probably because circumstances in this country are such that Rediffusion is not in competition with the B.B.C. and I.T.A.
4. The Board of Trade further consider that, on the assumption that licences (not the normal P.M.G. T.V. licences but licences issued by H.K.T.V.B. for the wire relay of their programmes) would be issued in Hong Kong in return for some form of fes, Section 40(3) of the U.K. Act should be extended to Hong Kong. This would exempt the relay company from any obligations to clear rights with authors, etc., when they relay H.K.T.V.B. programmes. 5. The Board of Trade further point out that whatever the merits of making Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. pay the copyright owner (in practice only the composers collect for relaying the sound programme), if there is no equivalent of Section 40(3) in the Act as extended to Hong Kong it seems likely that the copyright owners will be paid twice when H.K.T.V.B.'s programmes are relayed. But, much more important, it would make it virtually impossible for Rediffusion (Hong Kong) to relay any of the commercial T.V. service (because they would have, in advance, to get permission from the copyright owners of the works included in the broadcasta). It is one thing for A broadcasting organisation, which makes up its programmes well in advance, to do this; but quite another for a relay organisation to do so. It may be that the Hong Kong authorities wish to prohibit virtually all relaying by Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. of the new commercial T.V. service. But if they propose to allow it to continue, some provision absolving Rediffusion from clearing copyright in advance, with This seema to all the copyright owners, will have to be made.
us commonsense,
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
16.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.