TNAG-0265-FCO40-301-Legislation-for-copyright-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 27

I

Resume of essential objections of Rediffusion to enactment in Hong Kong of copyright legislation different in material respects from the 1956 Copyright Act.

3/6/

الحي

But see 34)

2.

1.

b)

As a matter of copyright, the objectionable features of the

legislation:

a)

Give Hong Kong broadcasters a right which they do not need for their protection, and which British broadcasters have not

claimed.

Do not accord with what appears to be the policy of H.M. Government (see U.K. ratifications of Strasbourg Agreement, particularly the

reservations).

c) Implies that relay is a form of reproduction (in the copyright

sense) whereas it is not, and is merely a means of assisting reception in other words, a sophisticated aerial. (See the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Fortnightly Corp.

v United Artists)

d)

e)

Are without precedent in the U.K. or elsewhere where the 1956 Act

has been applied.

If adopted, would create an unwholesome precedent, with which

H.M. Government would be associated, in an era when relay systems

are rapidly and universally becoming recognised as an important, and perhaps essential, means of overcoming reception and waveband- overcrowding difficulties.

₤) In no way serve the public interest.

As a matter of law, the objectionable features are, according to the best legal advice obtainable, ultra vires the Hong Kong Legislature having regard to the 1956 Act and the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Rediffusion attempted to obtain a judicial decision on this point but, because of technical points taken by the Hong Kong Government, decision has ever been given on the basic issue. However, the Judgments of the Privy Council (Appeals 25 and 26/1968) are as illuminating as they could be under the circumstances. at page 19 ("I cannot help thinking

But Are

рата н

para

25

2

no

See Lord Morris

it was a pity that so much

Cont/..