| 翻訳と辞書 |
| World Trade Organization Dispute 160 ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
World Trade Organization Dispute 160
On January 26, 1999, the European Communities (EC) and its Member States requested consultation with the United States concerning a dispute over discrepancies between the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) and Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act. The dispute was over the legality of “the playing of radio and television music in public places (such as bars, shops, restaurants etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee” (World). The disputed parties worked through the existing process of WTO Dispute Settlement. First the EC lodged a complaint against the US with the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and requested consultation over the dispute. Then the parties requested a panel leading to the body’s eventual formation, followed by the circulation of the panel report. The parties accepted the Panel Report without appeal and the dispute ended in arbitration over implementation of the panel’s recommendations. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland acted as third parties in this dispute (World).
==The Complaint==
The European Community and its Member States considered the United States in violation of international copyright law at the cost of European artists. The European Community questioned the US Copyright Act in which Section 110(5) creates two exemptions. The first, a so-called “business exemption,” allowed food, drink, and retail establishments under certain size and equipment restrictions, to display audio or visual transmissions without paying a royalty fee provided the establishments did not charge directly for the transmission and did not display the service beyond the establishment’s boundaries. The second, a “homestyle exemption,” gave the same exemption to small establishments that used only broadcasting equipment commonly found in private homes (World). The two TRIPs articles cited by the European Community disagreed with the US exemptions; stating 1) in article 13, that exceptions to copyright law would be exclusive to cases that do not “unreasonably” run contrary to the interests of the right holder and 2) in article 9(1), that members party to the TRIPs agreement would almost entirely comply with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (TRIPS).
The Berne Convention is an international agreement that defines creative property rights across borders, which gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to control not only the broadcast of the work but also the public exhibition of it through the use of “ loudspeaker or analogous instrument”. The complainant specifically noted article 11(1) of the Berne Convention which places the right to control “any communication to the public of the performance of () works” “by any means” solely in the copyright holder (Berne).
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「World Trade Organization Dispute 160」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|