Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-qj5tk Total loading time: 0.157 Render date: 2022-07-06T12:25:20.998Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true
  • English
World Trade Review World Trade Review

Article contents

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

HTML view is not available for this 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diwan, Ishac and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. Patents, Appropriate Technology, and North-South Trade. Journal of International Economics 30: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
You have Access
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *