+
2.
and later in his judgment he said, "it would not be an easy task for anyone to have to argue that what Hong Kong7 would be doing would be other than unlawful or contrary to law". If the courts are likely to take that view if and when the Ordnance is enacted, there seems little point in enacting it. Our own feeling is that the terms of Section 31 of the Copyright Act 1956 do, in fact, enable the Hong Kong Legislature to make modifications to the provisions of the Copyright Act in the case of broadcasts made from Hong Kong. The fact that one should have these dicta without the point ever being argued, is, you may feel, rather unfortunate. Your legal advisers may have views on the point of law here.
As to the validity of the arguments advanced by RTV and TVB respectively, my only comment is that it is universally accepted in countries which protect broadcasts, that broadcasting organisations should have protection against re-broadcasting of their programmes by competing organisations; and this being so it is not inherently unreasonable to give them protection against the dissemination of their programmes by wire if the disseminating organisation is itself a competitor. Having said this however I am not urging any particular course of action in relation to the dispute in Hong Kong.
I am glad to note what is said in para. 6 of the letter of 19 June.
Yours sincerely
is hullar
W Wallace
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.