TNAG-2128-FCO40-3042-Copyright-(Taiwan)-Order-1985-extension-to-Hong-Kong-1990 — Page 52

18-77

Reference...

4 As regards paragraph 36 (2) of Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act.

For one thing, I I am inclined to take a narrow view of it. doubt that the draftsman was thinking of the peculiar features of the 1987 Orders; the paragraph is worded in the usual form for savings of extensions orders made for the application,

The other point is that directly, of the primary legislation.

the paragraph speaks of a variation where the new copyright provisions do not come into force in the territory to which the Order extends. This, I would think, permits a variation of an Extension Order to modify its provisions as regard a country to which it relates under the repealed provisions of the 1956 Act or to remove a country from the list specified in the Order, but I doubt the variation can take the form of

If that view is correct, then the specifying a new country. 1987 Order cannot be varied to include Hong Kong in the list of specified countries.

5 Where we go from here if Hong Kong indicates a willingness to protect Taiwanese works I do not know. Nor have I an answer to what is to be done if the dependencies want their Extension Orders updated to the 1988 Act protection on Taiwanese works - under section 157(2) We might discuss.

DS MANGAT

}