Policy Statement & Submission

30 March 2001


Mr Chau Tak Hay
Secretary for Commerce and Industry
Commerce and Industry Bureau
Level 29, One Pacific Place
88 Queensway
Hong Kong

　

Dear Brian

Intellectual Property (Misc Amendment) Ordinance - Application to Reprographic Rights

As you know, the Chamber strongly supports the protection of intellectual property rights. Over the years we have actively promoted the benefits of IPR protection to the business community. It has occurred to us, however, that some serious problems are going to arise in regard to the application of the Amendment to reprographic rights, and I feel obliged to point these out to you on behalf of the Chamber's members.

We uphold the spirit of the Amended Ordinance in relation to copyright of material used in the course of business. However, we find it difficult to understand why this principle should, and how in practice it can, be applied to photocopying of newspapers and magazines in the work place. We predict that there will be mass confusion and non-compliance due to the apparently draconian nature of this aspect of the Amendment, which appears not to have been well thought out.

To apply the Amendment to photocopying in the office will be against the spirit of the Ordinance, which is to combat corporate piracy, not to inconvenience business. Since all newspaper articles are already in the public domain, it flies in the face of common sense to criminalise someone as a "corporate pirate" if all he does is to photocopy some newspaper articles in the workplace.

Moreover, even if one were to insist on applying the Ordinance to photocopying of newspapers, it would be extremely difficult in practice for this to be implemented. As far as we know, the Hong Kong Reprographic Rights Licensing Society, the only body for collective administration of reprographic rights in Hong Kong, is not yet ready to provide a credible and sustainable scheme for the administration of reprographic rights for newspapers and magazines. Apparently, the government is not ready either in the regulation of these licensing bodies, as the "Registration of Copyright Licensing Bodies Regulations" is not yet in force.

In light of the above, I would like, on behalf of the Chamber's members, to ask the Administration to consider an interpretation of the Amended Ordinance which excludes its application to photocopying of newspaper and magazine articles. If you interpretation remains that such reprographic rights is indeed covered by the Ordinance, then I would suggest that the government explore the possibility of an amendment to exclude it. In order that the government has time to take such action, what is urgently needed now is an immediate postponement of the Ordinance regarding reprographic rights.

I would conclude by stating again our support for action against IPR infringement in the course of business. It is out of support for the spirit of the Amended Ordinance that we feel necessary to object to its application to casual photocopying.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely

　

C C Tung
Chairman