I read with interest the debate concerning copyright piracy in Hong Kong and the Government's rather feeble attempt to deflect the criticisms being levelled against the Hong Kong SAR in respect of copyright piracy.
Despite the fine sounding words of the Government, its deeds belie any intention to stamp out copyright piracy and I believe this will continue to be the case so long as the Copyright Ordinance remains in its present form. I understand that the Copyright Ordinance was adapted wholesale based upon the UK Copyright Act, without taking into account the significant geographical differences between the UK and Hong Kong. In particular the fact that very little manufacturing now takes place in Hong Kong.
Instead the planning, marketing and administration and sometimes the design of toolings and moulds are based in Hong Kong whilst the actual manufacturing will take place in mainland China.
This is significant as my understanding is that the Copyright Ordinance provides in effect that manufacturers who manufacture pirated goods in Hong Kong will be held liable whether or not they have knowledge that the goods are infringing or not infringing. On the other hand an importer or other person selling pirated goods will be a secondary infringer and have a defence available to him if he claims to be unaware that the goods infringed somebody else's copyright. The moral of the story for potential infringers is to undertake their planning, sales and administration from Hong Kong but arrange for the production and assembly of the pirated goods across the border and then have the finished product delivered to the Hong Kong company which then denies any knowledge of copyright infringement and of course denies that it is a manufacturer in Hong Kong.
Until this apparent anomaly is removed, Hong Kong cannot possibly be taken seriously on the world stage of protecting intellectual property rights and quite frankly will either have to address the problem or accept increasing international pressure and isolation as a consequence of its inability to protect intellectual property rights.
J. BLADEN Central
