TNAG-2128-FCO40-3042-Copyright-(Taiwan)-Order-1985-extension-to-Hong-Kong-1990 — Page 25

CODE 18-77

Reference.

MR IRVING

IPCD

From:

DS MANGAT Sols C4

Room 114

10-18 Victoria Street

215 3472

1 February 1990

CC: Mr Britton

t

COPYRIGHT

EXTENSION TO HONG KONG

You will have seen Mr Whomersley's letter to me of 29 January. He has asked for early comments on the draft Order so as to catch the Privy Council meeting on 14 February.

2 The amendment to the Copyright (Hong Kong) Order 1972, as amended by the 1979 Order, appears to get around the problem presented by the Copyright (Taiwan) Order 1985. Subject to your views, I propose to say this to Mr Whomersley.

3 Since the 1979 Hong Kong Order there have been two amending Acts which could be relevant to the variation of the extension proposed under the FCO draft. The Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Act 1982 (c.35) created the offence (now section 21 (4A) of the 1956 Act) of possession of an article which the infringer knows to be an infringing copy of a sound recording or film. The Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985 (c.41) provided that the 1956 Act shall apply to computer programs as it does to literary works. Do you think we ought to draw FCO's attention to these with a view to an amendment of Schedule 1, Part I of the 1972 Order for their inclusion? - the Part was amended by the 1979 Order to include a reference to the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1971 (relating to the Performance Rights Tribunal). There is, of course, the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 which amended the 1956 Act to provide for cable programmes as copyright works. I take it this would not be relevant in the Taiwan `context.

in

4 On the draft itself, "principal Order" in article 1(1) and (2) should, I think, read "principal Orders"; article 2(b) "sections" should read "provisions" (but see the corresponding provision in the 1979 Order). The Explanatory Note could be expanded by the addition of some