Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-wkjwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-29T22:25:59.611Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act: 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:  16 September 2015

Gene M. Grossman  and
Petros C. Mavroidis
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not possible as this article does not have html content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.”1

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 2 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2001 , 2003 , pp. 281 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Chin, Judith and Grossman, Gene M. 1990. Intellectual Property Rights and North South Trade. Pp. 90–107 in Jones, R.W. and Krueger, A.O., eds. The Political Economy of International Trade. Cambridge MA: Basil Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Deardorff, Alan V. 1992. Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection. Economica 59: 35–51.Google Scholar
Diwan, Ishac and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. Patents, Appropriate Technology, and North-South Trade. Journal of International Economics 30: 27–48.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. and Lai, Edwin L.-C. 2002. International Protection of Intellectual Property. NBER Working Paper No. 8704.Google Scholar
Helpman, Elhanan. 1993. Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights. Econometrica 61: 1247–1280.Google Scholar
Maskus, Keith E. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington DC: The Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 2002. The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties. NBER Working Paper No. 9114.Google Scholar