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

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
GENE M. GROSSMAN ◽  
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Berne Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Musical Works ◽  
Exclusive Right

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’.

scholarly journals 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

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 281-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Grossman ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Berne Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Musical Works ◽  
Exclusive Right

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

Interaction of Ukrainian Diaspora and the USA Government Regarding Celebration of Ukrainian Independence Day on January 22

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (47) ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Halyna Shchyhelska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
The Public ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Consciousness ◽  
The Usa

2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. OnJanuary 22, 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic proclaimed its independence by adopting the IV Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada, although this significant event was «wiped out» from the public consciousness on the territory of Ukraine during the years of the Soviet totalitarian regime. At the same time, January 22 was a crucial event for the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA. This article examines how American Ukrainians interacted with the USA Government institutions regarding the celebration and recognition of the Ukrainian Independence day on January 22. The attention is focused on the activities of ethnic Ukrainians in the United States, directed at the organization of the special celebration of the Ukrainian Independence anniversaries in the US Congress and cities. Drawing from the diaspora press and Congressional Records, this article argues that many members of Congress participated in the observed celebration and expressed kind feelings to the Ukrainian people, recognised their fight for freedom, during the House of Representatives and Senate sessions. Several Congressmen submitted the resolutions in the US Congress urging the President of United States to designate January 22 as «Ukrainian lndependence Day». January 22 was proclaimed Ukrainian Day by the governors of fifteen States and mayors of many cities. Keywords: January 22, Ukrainian independence day, Ukrainian diaspora, USA, interaction, Congress

Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif H. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

At the centre of the international trading order, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), lies a dispute-settlement system. This system offers a graduated conflict-resolution mechanism that begins with a consultation process; progresses to adjudication, through a panel system, and ends in an appellate process.1 Under this machinery, in October 1996 India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (the complainants) requested joint consultations with the United States, regarding the US prohibition on the importation of certain shrimps and shrimp products caught with fishing technology considered by the United States adversely to affect the population of sea turtles—an endangered species under CITES.2 The US prohibition arose from section 609 of Public Law 101–1623 and associated regulations and judicial rulings (hereafter referred to as section 609). In a nutshell the complainants claimed denial of market access to their exports, and the United States justified this on grounds of conservation. However, as a consequence of the failure of the consultations, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a panel, around April 1997, to consider a joint complaint against the United States in relation to section 609. Australia, Ecuador, the European Communities, HongKong, China, Mexico and Nigeria joined the complainants as third parties. In May 1998 the panel's report was published, containing a decision in favour of the complainants. In July 1998 the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body, and in October 1998 the Appellate Body issued its report.4

scholarly journals Is COVID-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1281-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Norrlöf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Public Bads ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.

Non-Standard Work in Two Different Employment Regimes

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M. Olsen ◽  
Arne L. Kalleberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Temporary Workers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Work Arrangements ◽  
Standard Work ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hiring And Firing

This article examines organizations’ use of non-standard work arrangements - fixed-term employees hired directly by the organization, workers from temporary help agencies (THA), and contractors - in the United States and Norway. Our analysis is based on information obtained from surveys of 802 establishments in the US and 2130 in Norway. We find that Norwegian establishments make greater use of non-standard arrangements than the US establishments; we argue that this is due in part to the greater overall restrictive labour market regulations on hiring and firing regular workers, and greater demand for temporary labour resulting from generous access to leaves of absence, in Norway. We also find that certain institutional factors have a similar impact in both countries. First, establishments in the public sector are more likely to use direct-hired temporary workers and less apt to use contractors and THAs; this pattern is particularly striking in Norway, but is also evident in the United States. Second, highly unionized establishments tend to have the lowest use of non-standard arrangements in both countries.

scholarly journals China–GOES (Article 21.5): Time to Clarify the Standard for Price Suppression and Price Depression in AD/CVD Investigations

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIA QIN ◽  
HYLKE VANDENBUSSCHE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Electrical Steel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Modeling ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Price Effects ◽  
The Us ◽  
Countervailing Duties

AbstractThis dispute concerns the measures China took to implement the Dispute Settlement Body's rulings inChina–GOES, which had found a number of violations with respect to China's antidumping and countervailing duties imposed on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) imported from the United States. In this compliance proceeding, the United States claimed that the Redetermination issued by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) continued to violate WTO law. At the center of the dispute were MOFCOM's findings that the US imports had the effect of suppressing and/or depressing the prices of domestic like products. While the Panel reached the conclusion that the MOFCOM findings were inconsistent with WTO rules, it did not clarify the criteria for determining such price effects. In this comment, we call for the adoption of a clearer and more objective standard for determining price suppression and price depression in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, via the tools of economic modeling.

scholarly journals RESTRICTIONS ON COPYRIGHT IN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ASPECT

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Yu. Akulov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Aspect ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Us ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Exhaustive List

The article compares the American copyright system (from its inception, borrowing the basics of the English system to the establishment of the principle of "fair use") and the Ukrainian system, which provides a specific list of cases allowed as a restriction of copyright (enumerated system) by establishing in national legal acts of the three-stage test provided by the Berne Convention. The article examines not only the legislation of Ukraine and the United States in this area, such as: the Federal Copyright Act of 1790, the second Federal Copyright Act of 1909, the Copyright Act of 1976, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright law and related rights" but also the case law of the United States, which is a key element in regulating disputes in the area under discussion. The author analyzes a number of cases through the prism of changing approaches in the US system of property rights restrictions, namely Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc. No. 1: 17-cv-822 dated January 8, 2018; Peteski Productions, Inc. v. Leah Rothman No. 5: 17-CV-00122 dated August 30, 2017; Rosen v. eBay, Inc., No. 2: 13-cv-06801-MWF-E of 16 January 2015 and Corbello v. DeVito No. 2: 08-cv-00867-RCJ-PAL June 14, 2017. As a result of the research, the author determines that the national legislation establishes an exhaustive list of works that are its objects, at the same time, the ways of using the work depend on the type of particular work. Therefore, an exhaustive list of all possible ways to use the works is not provided. U.S. law provides for an exhaustive list of copyrighted works and an exhaustive list of ways to use such works. And the doctrine of "fair use" in the United States provides that in determining whether the use of work in any particular case is fair, there are at least 4 factors to consider. Keywords: the principle of "enumerated system", the system of "numerus clausus", the concept of "exceptions and limitations", US copyright law, the doctrine of fair use, the Agreement on guidelines for copying in non-profit educational institutions, free use of works, three-stage test.

scholarly journals Interest Relief on Income Tax Debts: Canada Versus the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 931-986
Author(s):  
Michael H. Lubetsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Voluntary Disclosure ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Willingness To Use ◽  
Tax Court ◽  
The Comparative Study

Subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act authorizes the minister of national revenue to waive or cancel interest on income tax debts. This power is typically exercised in four circumstances: where interest has accumulated owing to circumstances beyond a taxpayer's control; where the interest has accumulated owing to error or delay by the Canada Revenue Agency; where the accumulated interest causes hardship; or in the context of a voluntary disclosure. South of the border, section 6404 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the secretary of the Treasury to "abate" interest on tax debts. As a practical matter, discretionary interest relief under section 6404 is available only in very limited circumstances. The restrictive approach to discretionary interest relief is, however, offset by a greater array of interest-relieving provisions, as well as by the power of the secretary to "compromise" tax liabilities on various grounds, some of which overlap with grounds for interest relief recognized in Canada. This article compares the Canadian and US interest relief regimes, with a view to identifying aspects of the US regime that may merit further consideration in Canada. The differences in the US approach that are of particular interest include • a wider, and arguably more coherent, range of relieving provisions applicable to interest, particularly with regard to interest netting and carrybacks; • the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court to review refusals to abate interest and/or to accept an offer in compromise; • dealing with situations of hardship and extraordinary circumstances under the aegis of the offer-in-compromise regime, which allows for consideration of the underlying tax liability in addition to the interest, and which also allows for relief to be made conditional on the taxpayer's future compliance with filing and payment obligations; • in certain older cases, a willingness to use interest relief to settle longstanding and complex tax disputes; and • the absence of statutory time limits on the power of the secretary to abate or compromise interest. The comparative study also reveals how Canada and the United States place different weight on policy rationales that underlie interest relief. Canada focuses mainly on ensuring that the consequences of non-compliance for individual taxpayers are fair and equitable. The United States, on the other hand, focuses more on rehabilitating non-compliant taxpayers in the long term, as well as ensuring that interest reflects fair compensation for such taxpayers' use of the public treasury's money—both of which could be given greater attention on this side of the border.

International Migration as an Issue on Today's Inter-American Agenda

1994 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Migration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Labor Migrants ◽  
The Public ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The Us ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
The One

As a frequent concern both of governments and of the public at large in Western Hemisphere nations, international migration is now more prominent than at any time since 1980. The episodic flow of seaborne refugees from Haiti since 1991 has been a key factor in spurring the inter-American community to oppose Haiti's military rulers. The flotilla of rafts leaving Cuba since early August 1994 has engendered high-profile negotiations on migration between Washington and Havana. The stream of undocumented labor migrants from Mexico to the United States has regained momentum since the late 1980s and is encountering increased public criticism, especially in the western United States.Underlying these instances of political tension is a strong, and only partially-met, demand for migration to the United States from parts of Latin America and the Caribbean on the one hand, and a growing anxiety in the US to “control the nation's borders” on the other.

Copyright in War and Peace

1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-399
Author(s):  
Wallace McClure
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Constitution ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Point Of Departure

When citizens of the United States propose a discussion of any subject of public policy which is specifically mentioned in the national Constitution, the constitutional provision is likely to be the most appropriate point of departure. The statesmen who framed the great charter of 1787 were on the alert in the public interest when, after providing that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,"1 they added thatThe Congress shall have Power . . .To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document