Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T12:11:01.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dispute settlement corner: United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU: would've or should've? Impaired benefits due to copyright infringement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2004

GENE M. GROSSMAN  and
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
GENE M. GROSSMAN
Affiliation:
Princeton University
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
Affiliation:
University of Neuchâtel and Columbia Law School, and CEPR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This dispute between the European Communities and the United States originated when the United States amended its copyright law in a way that nullified and impaired certain benefits promised to the European Communities under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs). Article 9.1 of TRIPs requires all WTO members to comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention of 1971. Among the provisions of the Berne Convention thus incorporated into the TRIPs Agreement is one that grants to authors of literary and artistic works the exclusive right to authorize ‘the public communication by loudspeaker or any analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work’, and another that grants to authors of dramatic and musical works the exclusive right to authorize ‘any communication to the public of the performance of these works’.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 2003 , pp. 233 - 249
Copyright
© 2003 Gene M. Grossman and Petros C. Mavroidis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Reproduced by kind permission of The American Law Institute and Cambridge University Press. This case analysis is included alongside others in The WTO Case Law of 2001: The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. The authorized full printed text of this case is in DSR 2001, III also from Cambridge University Press.